| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 09.04.04 16:48l 251 Lines 9087 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3120-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Apr 06, 2/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0ACC<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<EB2BJX<ED1ZAC<
ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040409/1406Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:22138 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3120-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: AX.25 Address field question?
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:06:21 -0700
X-Message-Number: 7
If anyone figures out who to talk to about this, let me know. As far as I
can tell, the 'ARRL Ad Hoc Committee on Digital Communications' doesn't
exist anymore. I finally gave up trying to coordinate PID assignment for
OpenTRAC and just picked a PID on my own.
It wouldn't be backwards compatible, but I'd love to see a new frame format
specifically for UI type applications. Something that does away with the
TOCALL field and maybe the repeater fields too. Jeroen Vreeken, PE1RXQ, has
already done some experiments with compact binary routing flags that can
take the place of APRS digi fields. You should be able to save at least 15
bytes per packet for APRS use - great for mic encoder operation, and
probably for IP encapsulation as well. And I suppose you could at least
avoid interfering with normal AX.25 by using the complement of the frame
check sequence - that way they'd never appear to be valid AX.25 frames to an
older system.
Scott
N1VG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
>TAPR, etc.
>
>We must get this AX.25 version 2.2 changed. If future MFR's
>start building to 2.2, and prohibit DIGI's beyond 2, then we
>will lose an essential feature of UI digipeating. Yes, 2 hops
>is sufficient for connected packet, but AX.25 is NOT JUST
>for connected packet. We MUST get this changed. Who
>can spearhead the writing campaign (after first confirming
>the facts...)
>
>de Wb4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mic-E Packet Help Needed
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 8
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Eric Christensen wrote:
>So, what was ever figured out with this? Roger (UI-View Author) says that
>if the TNC is in KISS mode (which it is) then it doesn't matter what the
>Filter settings are because the TNC doesn't do any filtering to the
>packets... they are just passed through to the Computer.
That is absolutely correct, but then the igate software hooked to
the KISS TNC might be expanding or corrupting the Mic-E packets.
>One of the stations was altering the Mic-E packets and sending them on to
>the IS and the IS servers weren't seeing them as dups and was allowing both
>to pass. Any ideas?
Find out what software and version each igate is running. Perhaps
you can figure out a way to route a packet to one on RF but not the
other, in order to isolate which is doing it?
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: AX.25 Address field question?
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 9
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>It wouldn't be backwards compatible, but I'd love to see a new frame format
>specifically for UI type applications. Something that does away with the
>TOCALL field and maybe the repeater fields too.
If it's not part of the AX.25 standard, then you'd have to identify
the transmitter via a standard AX.25 frame or via morse code here in
the U.S. :-O
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: AX.25 Address field question?
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:23:00 -0700
X-Message-Number: 10
Once every 10 minutes, at least. So make it a part of the AX.25 standard
and you're set.
Scott
N1VG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Scott Miller wrote:
>
>>It wouldn't be backwards compatible, but I'd love to see a new frame format
>>specifically for UI type applications. Something that does away with the
>>TOCALL field and maybe the repeater fields too.
>
>If it's not part of the AX.25 standard, then you'd have to identify
>the transmitter via a standard AX.25 frame or via morse code here in
>the U.S. :-O
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mic-E Packet Help Needed
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:25:09 -0400
X-Message-Number: 11
KE4TZN: KPC-3 and UI-View32 V1.99. Verified that the TNC had 8bitconv ON
and that his modem was in KISS mode.
N8VNR-1: APRSd v2.2.5. No other information was confirmed at this station
at this time.
2004-Mar-31 09:54:25 (UTC)
KB4TOH-13>S5QT6V,K4ROK-10*,WIDE,KE4TZN,I:'i?6lk/]"4"}
2004-Mar-31 09:54:26 (UTC)
KB4TOH-13>S5QT6V,K4ROK-10,KD4PBS-3*,qAR,N8VNR-1:'i?6l k/]"4"}
As you can see, the packet gated by N8VNR-1 has a space (or non-printing
character) between the l and k. Where as the one that KE4TZN gated does
not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: AX.25 Address field question?
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:33:15 -0400
X-Message-Number: 12
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT), Curt, WE7U wrote:
>If it's not part of the AX.25 standard, then you'd have to identify
>the transmitter via a standard AX.25 frame or via morse code here in
>the U.S. :-O
Are you sure about that? I'm fairly sure that requirement was dropped... I
don't hear folks ID via morse on PSK31, MFSK16 or MT63 on HF. I think the
rule is the specification just be publicly documented, and you can ID within
that format.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mic-E Packet Help Needed
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:43:11 -0500
X-Message-Number: 13
On the contrary, take a look at
http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=KB4TOH-13 This takes out any
anomalies caused by either your logging software or display software.
From reviewing the data at findu.com, it appears that N8VNR-1 has FILTER
turned ON (default for aprsd) or has some other anomaly with the TNC.
KB4TZN appears to be passing the data correctly.
From the findu data, I would focus in on getting N8VNR to correct the
aprsd settings.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete@ae5pl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: AX.25 Address field question?
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 14
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Jeff King wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT), Curt, WE7U wrote:
>
>>If it's not part of the AX.25 standard, then you'd have to identify
>>the transmitter via a standard AX.25 frame or via morse code here in
>>the U.S. :-O
>
>Are you sure about that? I'm fairly sure that requirement was dropped... I
>don't hear folks ID via morse on PSK31, MFSK16 or MT63 on HF. I think the
>rule is the specification just be publicly documented, and you can ID within
>that format.
That's why it's good to post to a well-subscribed mailing list, so that my
info can get updated.
Yea, I'm working from old info. Thought it was still current. May not be.
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Why archive only SPAM on the TAPR lists???
From: "Curt, WE7U" <archer@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 15
I had some downtime for my personal e-mail over the last 24 hours. Anyone
sending me private e-mail from 3pm PST yesterday until 8am this morning may
want to resend.
Checked APRSSIG archives: They're still ARCHIVING ONLY THE SPAM from the
lists and not any of the real messages, and have been doing this since
about May of last year.
Archiving a year of spam and throwing away a year of valuable discussions?
Can we get this fixed???
This has been reported before, many times. I'm not sure whether it's a
cruel joke or a configuration oversight.
--
Curt, WE7U archer at eskimo dot com
Arlington, WA, USA http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
