| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.09.06 22:07l 154 Lines 6628 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 8760-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST DK9SAS
Subj: [APRSSIG] Vol 27 #12, 2/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<TU5EX<IW2OAZ<ZL2BAU
Sent: 060915/0051Z @:ZL2BAU.#87.NZL.OC #:4157 [Waimate] $:8760-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL2BAU.#87.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:30:23 -0400
From: Brian Riley <brianbr_at_mac.com>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Recommended IGate Connection
Plan B, a little more costly... I just bought a new Ranger truck and one
look under the hood was enough too tell me I didn't want to begin to try to
figure out a way through the firewall. When I took it down to the place to
have the spray on bedliner done, they also do car alarms and remote
starters. They charged me one hour labor ($30) to run a wire (which I
supplied) from the battery into the cab down by the console. As far as I am
concerned, it was worth every penny and I have the unblemished (read that
as not scraped) knuckles to prove it! I spliced the fuse holder on near the
battery and then crimped on the terminals and bolted it to the battery and
then crimped on the Power Poles and mounted a 5 position RigRunner on the
console and plugged the cable to it.
---
cheers... 73 de brian riley, n1bq, underhill center, vermont
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:50:58 -0700
From: "Ray McKnight" <shortsheep_at_worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
If you've ever used a packet node you'd probably not be asking "why not".
The purpose of a node is to connect to other remote nodes, and eventually a
BBS somewhere. Most node software isn't very smart and will generate ack's
for each and every packet, plus retries for each dropped frame. Although
there *are* rather sophisticated nodes, running software like Roseswitch,
KA9Q or other variations, the big problem is that even with this software a
node still generates an awful lot of packets. Once a single user connects
and simply request a dir listing or checks messages, bulletins, they've
likely already tied up the channel for several minutes of nearly continuous
packets. Multiply this by each sucsessive user who logs in and it can be
an absolute traffic jam during peak hours. Now, throw those rediculous
KA-Nodes on the channel, which don't conform to any intelligent protocol,
and you might as well auction the freq off to UPS.
If there is such little APRS activity in your area that you are screaming
for something to occupy the air, there most likely isn't enough usage to
justify a true node either. APRS and connected mode do NOT play well
together - it's like putting bicycles in the middle of I-5 in downtown LA.
A node is a time consuming endeavor as far as management. A good one
requires a lot of planning and coordination, so to communicate effectively
with other compatible nodes. Simply plopping a Kantronics on the air and
enabling it's "node" function is like screamong bomb on an airplane, it
only creates chaos and failure. Keep nodes where they belong, 145.01/03/05
etc.
With the advent of WinLink which offers far superior performance, and can
be used on either HF or VHF effecitively and MUCH faster, why bother? But
if you're stubborn and determined, I'll dust off my old CP/M machine and
you can have a blast.
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:46:49 +0200
From: Gregg Wonderly <gregg_at_wonderly.org>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Bill Vodall wrote:
>In an area with one or two or three active users total - it wouldn't
>be cost effective to build two separate systems when one would
>work just fine. Any more users and activity would make sense
>to build a separate system to carry the additional load.
>
>It all comes down to the airtime usage.
I think its important to step back from this being an APRS on 144.390 issue
and consider what is really going on. What is really going on is packet
radio traffic using existing digipeaters. The PID in the AX.25 packet is
about specifying packet content type. APRS is supposed to be using a
predefined value, and some implementations don't. When TCP/IP was
prevalent on packet radio, there wasn't a separate network for FTP vs
telnet vs... Because they all shared a common protocol base, and because
the system components had no problems with interpreting what was in the
packet because of AX.25 PID, IP protocol and TCP protocol types, everyone
got along.
Having new/different PIDs on the APRS network is only an issue because of
two things. Either additional, unacceptable loading in a area, or because
there is an application which is not using PID at the AX.25 level. KISS is
the level where PID is visible to software that the user is in control of.
If a user is using conversational mode TNC functions, then it's the TNC
that decodes the AX.25 and manages the PID issue.
Probably 1200bps packet radio on 144.390 is of limited use for most data
applications of any substantial TX time because the hidden transmitters
will clobber a lot of packets. That's probably the strongest argument
against using anything on 144.390, except APRS.
But, I'd say that local needs prevail, and if, in your area, you can get by
with the desired results for the users of the network in that area, then
using existing resources is probably more cost effective anyway.
Gregg Wonderly
W5GGW
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:30:14 -0700
From: "Phillip B. Pacier" <ad6nh_at_arrl.net>
Subject: [aprssig] AGWTracker Users
This message is primarily directed toward AGWTracker users who are
connecting to the APRS-IS. I have noticed that most AGWTracker users are
connecting to port 10154 and setting their own filter. I'm not sure if
this is an error in the default server list for that program, but please
check and make sure you are connecting to port 14580 instead. Thanks!
73
--
Phillip Pacier - AD6NH APRS Tier 2 Coordinator
Sales Associate Baker to Vegas Digital Coordinator
Ham Radio Outlet, Anaheim www.aprs2.net
714-533-7373 www.aprsca.net
800-854-6046 www.b2vtracking.com
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:55:48 -0400
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga_at_usna.edu>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
>... Keep nodes where they belong, 145.01/03/05 etc.
>
>With the advent of WinLink which offers far superior
>performance, and can be used on either HF or VHF
>and/or internet and email, effecitively and MUCH
>faster, why bother?
I agree completely. If one is going to have a "BBS", make it part of the
WinLINK system so that it can do everything, not just ham packet mail.
Bob
------------------------------
aprssig mailing list
aprssig_at_lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
End of aprssig Digest, Vol 27, Issue 12
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
