[aprssig] Questions about Callsigns Used in APRS
vk4tec at tech-software.net
Mon Sep 26 11:37:52 CDT 2016
print $t "user VK4TEC-20 pass xxxxx vers perl 1.9"
They better be careful in Australia then
VK4FKAH breaks the rules
They whacked an F to tell them foundation class
Sent from my iPhone
e vk4tec at tech-software.net
m 0419 738 223
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 02:17, Kenneth Finnegan <kennethfinnegan2007 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu> wrote:
>> ➢ "Total length of logins/callsigns may not exceed 9 characters including
>> the SSID if present."
>> TNC callsigns are 6 plus up to 2 digit SSID and a hyphen. But for anything
>> else that can also be put on the map as an object or item the field is 9.
> I'm talking about APRS station callsigns which aren't using TNCs but are directly attached to the Internet. Pete clarified offline that my interpretation was correct; seven character callsigns with one character SSIDs and eight or nine character station callsigns with no SSID are acceptable.
> This does mean that any software parsing callsigns from the APRS-IS can't rely on them being 6x2 in length. Check your buffer lengths everyone!
>> > 2. What is the minimum length for SSn-N aliases? Two? One? Probably two to
>> > meet the APRS minimum of three when the 'n' is appended?
>> The minimum length of any callsign or object/item in APRS is 3 characters.
>> SSn-N seems to work, Im not sure about how actual hardware digipeaters
>> handle say Sn-N?
> I came to that realization that that 3 minimum dictated 2 char minimum for SSn-N. Aliases must be 2-5 characters.
>> > 5. Is GATE still a valid special handling token worth documenting and
>> > supporting?
>> Only a dual Port TNC or other VHF to HF gateway needs to handle it.
> Woah... I thought VHF to HF digis weren't at all allowed.
>> > Do HF stations requesting GATE actually want to land on everyone's VHF
>> > LANs...
>> Aboslutely not. That would be the worst operating practice. Unless someone
>> is calling MAYDAY, etc... so leave it in.
> So we don't want regular HF to VHF traffic either? Only for MAYDAYs seems like an incredibly small use case for developers to write in support for GATE on multi-port digipeaters. Any of our 30m operators want to chime in with what they want these days? Is it good enough to have your own I-gates and rely on RF-gate routing for any cross-band capabilities? That deprecates the GATE alias.
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Kenneth Finnegan
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aprssig