Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Running an igate station

Keith - VE7GDH ve7gdh at rac.ca
Mon Jun 19 02:22:32 UTC 2006


Tapio OH2KKU wrote...

(re "why someone would you want to set up a "one way" IGate?)

> I can give a couple of valid reasons for this:
> - in practice there are never too many properly working (=
> doesn't touch packet contents) listen-only igates, because
> they don't transmit on the band and duplicates are
> automatically filtered on the Internet-side...

I can kind of understand that reasoning, but what if only the "one way"
IGate heard a station and someone was trying to send a message to that
station via the APRS-IS? As far as I know, the APRS-IS wouldn't know that 
you were operating a one-way IGate.

> - two-way igates might require special permits to operate unattended,
> in Finland they are called automatic station licenses - you don't have
> to choose what to gate to RF if you don't gate anything. Some igate
> software don't offer much configurability on what to gate to RF.

That I hadn't considered. I thought that England was the only country with
archaic rules like that! It would be nice if "everything" could be done on
RF, but the APRS-IS has become an important part of the APRS
infrastructure. To my way of thinking, crippled IGates just fracture the
network. However if regulations prevent you from setting it up properly
about all you can do is lobby the powers that be and try and get them to
change the regulations. I have been a firm believer for a long time that
amateurs should have much more say in re-writing the rules that we operate
by. Most government agencies just aren't qualified to make the kind of
decisions that need to be made to upgrade the regulations as times change.

I suppose I would have to say that a "one way IGate" was better than no
IGate, but it would play havoc with messaging.

73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
--
"I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am!"







More information about the aprssig mailing list