[aprssig] SATgates ? (again)

John Wiseman john.wiseman at cantab.net
Wed Jan 27 05:06:35 CST 2016


Steve,

Although delaying directly heard packets for 10 seconds sounds a viable
approach, I'm not sure you could guarantee that a packet will be
retransmitted by the satellite and propagated to all Igates within 10
seconds.

73,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Steve Dimse via
aprssig
Sent: 26 January 2016 16:53
To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
Subject: Re: [aprssig] SATgates ? (again)


> On Jan 26, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Kenneth Finnegan via aprssig
<aprssig at tapr.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes. That's another big reason why so many of us are advocating against
this mode even being an option.
> 
First, it is not an issue for all satellites. For example ISS sends no
significant data in its beacons. 

Second, I agree it must not be a default least the telemetry frames of some
sats be trashed, but I still think it should be an option. In those cases
where an IGate is close to one or more hams trying to work the satellite it
can be turned on instead of losing the gate entirely. But there are better
options.

Most IGates already have a blessed list, this can be used to IGate all
packets. If you want a set-and-forget option with no need for a blessed
list, instead of sending direct packets to the bit bucket delay them 10
seconds to give a chance for the digipeated version to be propagated through
the APRS IS. If it is digipeated and heard by the delaying station the
direct packet on hold can be trashed, but even if it is only heard by
another IGate the direct version will be dupe-removed.

Steve K4HG
_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at tapr.org
http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig



More information about the aprssig mailing list