[aprssig] NOSaprs update - cross port digi with callsign substitution
wa7nwp at jnos.org
Wed Jun 22 09:18:39 CDT 2005
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> >>> <maiko> 06/21/05 3:06 PM >>>
> >NOSaprs now provides customized crossport
> >digipeating... if we get: HFUSER>APRS,WIDE
> >on HF, we can direct it to go out on VHF as :
> > HFUSER>APRS,N1OHX*,WIDE3-3
> 1) It is a 3 hop path that is not welcome in
> most high density areas of the APRS system
It's just an example.. Granted it should be shorter.
> 2) It violates the fundamental principle that
> the network should not modifying the path or
> intent of the sender except to protect the
> network from abuse. (or in response to a
> request from the sender).
It's not. It's sending the packet on a different
network. The original has been unchanged. This
is a good technique to expand the system and make
a little use of our vast underutilized frequencies.
As mentioned later - it should be in 3rd party format.
> 3) This path modification expands its load on
> the network adding to network congestion
Different network -- thus different rules for the path.
> 4) HF gates have the potential to add lots of
> added load to local networks. It has always been
Spotty 300 baud is adding "lots" to 1200 baud. The
years I gated 10.151 to 144.39 here -- the number
of packets were insignificant.
> the solid receommendation that HF packets should
> not go more than one hop on VHF so that that
> added congestion remains in the "backyard" of
> the HF gate and only impacts his local net, and
> not any surrounding states or nets that simply
> do not want it. APRS loads should be managed
> at the local level and this becomes impossible
"the local level" - that's the key. In some areas
even zero hops would be bad. In other areas, Wide3
might be welcome. The important thing is we
have the technology to do this.
> when large packet sources like HF gates and
> IGates spew their trafffic out more than generally
> 1 hop in all directions.
HF gates are certainly not in the same category
> 5) The only time (IMHO) that the network should
> modify the original packet of a sender is to:
> b) When removing APRS packets from the APRS
> system and placing them in another system and
> then only in a 3rd party format so that the
> originators intent and original packet remains
This is a big thing. I've had "3rd party format" on
the wish list for Digi_ned for years for just this
reason. When I was gating 10.151, it was essentially
as a one-way system bringing in the traffic for information
purposes only. I didn't want the system to consider my
HFgate as a return path. Yet since there was no way to
do 3rd party format, I became a bogus route to the 30 meter
I'll be talking to Maiko about the 3rd party format as
an extention to the NosAPRS gating.
Maybe this isn't such a good time to bring up my "need" to
actually change the data payload of packets when gating
them between networks... :-)
More information about the aprssig