[aprssig] Protocol translation - please no.
Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
ldeffenb at homeside.to
Wed Jun 26 07:41:42 CDT 2013
3rd party packets for the translations back to RF? More below...
On 6/26/2013 8:34 AM, Andrew P. wrote:
> I was assuming that:
Um, yeah. No comment. Definition 5 at
> a) OpenTRAC and APRS would not be transmitted on the same frequencies,
> so the translator would be functioning as a cross-frequency repeater;
Someone, somewhere, sometime wouldn't realize this design intent and
would do it anyway. Long after anyone that knows the ramifications has
moved on to different pastures.
> b) the APRS-IS backbone would never carry native OpenTRAC packets (a
> separate backbone would be needed to carry the different binary packet
Theoretically, if you make them 3rd party packets on RF, it might help?
> But you're right; a loop could still occur if two translators were
> "back-to-back" in the network (either over RF or via I-Gates on the
> APRS side), because translator#1 wouldn't recognize that the output of
> translator#2 was a previous input to translator#1 (even without the
> other issues you mentioned of digipeater/I-Gate mangling of packets).
Yep, and loops are bad, very bad as you already know.
Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aprssig