[aprssig] RE: APRS Message Idea

[dick at kb7zva.com]

>You can play all you want with the APRS-IS stream going to you.  The
>problem begins when you start sending unsolicited responses, etc., back
>into it.  Firenet established a very localized stream where
>experimenters could work with injecting objects from different sources
>without affecting the whole of APRS-IS.  This was doable because they
>were not dealing with messaging.  Someone connecting to one of their
>servers with a standard client could see all of APRS-IS, be seen on
>APRS-IS, and see all of the Firenet objects yet those Firenet objects
>would not be seen on APRS-IS.

>As far as setting up a "test net", have at it.  Nothing prevents you
>from testing on your own, disconnected server ;-)  But just because you
>can make something work doesn't mean it should be put on APRS-IS.  The
>Firenet group is a great example of understanding that.
>73,
>Pete Loveall AE5PL

Not really. If I send an object to RF, it will enter the APRS-IS from
another source. IGates.

We also saw how Firenet could be abused. Someone could easily take those
objects and flood them to RF. Once that happened they WOULD appear on the
APRS-IS, because they re-entered the APRS-IS from IGates that heard them
on RF.

This is not to currently criticise the folks at Firenet. When they first started
the 'Sea of Blue', they experimented with the APRS-IS in the art of mass flooding.
There is nothing in place that prevents an 'object' from entering the APRS-IS if it
is sent to RF.

The truth of the matter is that Firenet objects are seen on the APRS-IS. I think
we can expect to see more of this happening... ECHOLINKs, WINLinks, etc. are good
examples.

Firenet opened a whole new thinking process to experimenters. One thing that would
help prevent flooding to RF and back into the APRS-IS, would be TCPXX.

The APRS-IS is unmanaged, therefore we all have opinions on what's acceptable.
Everything has to start somewhere... how do we know it doesn't belong on the APRS-IS?
The Firenet Group was a great example of yielding to persuasion, and adapting to
some basic common sense. I could be wrong, but I don't think Firenet is a popular
concept. The Firenet client base hasn't changed much from it's inception. What's popular,
if anyone else has noticed is what Bob Bruninga commonly refers to as 'human intervention'. That 'would' include messaging, but not some automated process that promotes mass
injections, that swamps our average internet connections.

Dick, KB7ZVA
APRSWest