[aprssig] IGATE message routing bug?

steve at dimse.com steve at dimse.com
Sat Nov 19 14:32:18 CST 2016


> On Nov 19, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Randy Love <rlove31 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why don't you start by going around to every every RX only IGate operator and convincing them that they it is wrong to not have a two-way IGate? If the only Igate in an area is RX only, that definately breaks the system.
> 
This is the perfect example of why having a central authority is not workable.

Having a one way IGate as the only one one in an area is only bad for one reason, which is that someone who might be willing to set up a two way IGate does not do it because he thinks there already is one. But this does not break the system. Local operators need to coordinate their IGates, not have standards enforced from a venerated few.

There are legit reasons to have one way IGates. Chief among them is that a US IGate operator is putting his license and/or financial well-being on the line. I converted my IGate to one way on the day Dale Heatherington released the verification algorithm in aprsd. From that day forward the Part 97 exemption for safe haven is an automatic message forwarding system no longer applied. The risk of action is relatively low, but definitely non-zero. 

I think it is self-evident that having a one-way IGate is better than having none. If you are trying to force out one way IGates, you are saying your opinion is more important than others. I have fought long and hard for the APRS Internet System to be an inclusive place. If some hams only feel comfortable one-way gating, they can still play. 

Steve K4HG


More information about the aprssig mailing list