[aprssig] Compromise WinLink object proposal

Steve Dimse steve at dimse.com
Tue Feb 15 16:00:29 CST 2005

On 2/15/05 at 1:44 PM Bill Vodall <wa7nwp at jnos.org> sent:

>Two or three times a year?  Four to six month latency on the data?   I thought
>we're being conservative with 30 minute net cycle times.   After all, isn't
>APRS supposed to be a real time tactical information system?
No, I'm saying that new nodes come online every few months. The IGate operator
would edit the file whenever a new node comes online, not every n months on a
fixed schedule. It just wouldn't be something they need to do every day...

>> To me, that seems like a small price to pay to protect local RF users,
>It's not an issue.  We have screw ups here from time to time and the network
>gets flooded with extraneous packets.  After a couple days, when somebody
>eventually notices, we fix the problem, blame it on Tim and send 53's to

The difference here is it isn't an an APRSer that gets the blame, it is APRS IS
and WinLink that gets the blame, something like "It is the APRS Internet
System's fault for allowing these interlopers to use our resources." The next
time some non-APRS data gets proposed for APRS, people remember these events and
it is that much harder to convince people it is a good thing...

Steve K4HG

More information about the aprssig mailing list