| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 03.04.03 12:09l 317 Lines 11996 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1096-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 28, 2/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<WB0TAX<W7NTF<VK3TE<
ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030402/0948Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:63104 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1096-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: APRS Emergency packet e-mail
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:39:41 -0000
X-Message-Number: 10
Just signed up. Any chance of a 'roving' position option? i.e., specify
your callsign+ssid and range and have emergency notifications emailed to you
based on your actual location, not your home QTH. I've it set to email me
on my cell phone, and I suspect that'll be a common setup.
Also, I thought the standard was negative values for the western hemisphere.
Or is there a standard?
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ Alex ] Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: "Curt Mills, WE7U" <hacker@tc.fluke.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:11:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 11
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 henk.de.groot@hetnet.nl wrote:
>Hello Curt,
>
>From: "Curt Mills" <hacker@tc.fluke.com>
>>only allow packets that meet the Control=0x03, PID=0x0f
>>restrictions. Thanks for making me take another look at it!
>
>Be sure that the P/F bit is stripped off from the control byte before
>checking for 0x03, otherwise you will miss the UI frames that
>have the P/F bit set...
Thanks Henk, I'll look into that.
>As for the checks during the pocessing of the AX.25 packets from
>the kernel interface, I wrote that part of the code... Its defensive
>and only uses the data after checking its validity, just as Alex als
>descibed for his code (and the same way DIGI_NED validates the
>input). This method will withstand random junk packets.
I think most of our routines are defensive in that manner. We do a
lot of checking right up front, and drop long packets before they
get a chance to overflow buffers as well.
--
Curt Mills, WE7U hacker_NO_SPAM_@tc.fluke.com
Senior Methods Engineer/SysAdmin
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math!"
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates!" -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: dumb tracker with just a GPS and TNC to display waypoints on GPS?
From: "Travis Maclay" <audio@fbcjax.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:11:15 -0500
X-Message-Number: 12
On March 27, 2003 at 11:11 AM, Kelly Cushing wrote:
What are the set-up commands necessary to set up a dumb tracker with just a
GPS and TNC to display position data in the form of waypoints on the GPS?
$GPWPT seems to be stripped down to just position information. What do you
tell the TNC so it will give waypoints to the GPS? Does the TNC need to be a
KPC3+ or can it be a TT3?
Travis writes:
Actually, it depends on what type of TNC / GPS setup you have. For my
setup, I have a Garmin GPS3+ and a KPC3+. I am using the "second serial
port" on the KPC3+ (DB-9 port, same as the radio), which only allows
incoming data. However, if I were using the DB-25 connector on the TNC
for the GPS only, it would allow both incoming data (from GPS) and
outgoing data (to GPS). If your GPS is setup for NMEA, 4800, and your
TNC is wired to the GPS for incoming/outgoing data, you should see the
callsigns appear on your GPS as waypoints. At least it does on my other
setup, where I am using a bi-directional connection between my TNC and
GPS.
Hope that helps.
Travis Maclay
N4TJM
Jacksonville, Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: WinAPRS new version screen shots
From: "James B. Dinsmore" <jdins1@tds.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:37:13
X-Message-Number: 13
Mark,
What map formats will the new version of WINAPRS support?
Jim Dinsmore
KC8VKE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dumb tracker ...
From: cdapples <cdapples@cablemt.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:37:38 -0700
X-Message-Number: 14
In this vein, has anyone tapped into the onstar gps unit on their GM
vehicle?
--
Chris / KF7KN
+===============================+================================+
| Charles C. Dapples, Ph.D. | Red Lodge, Montana, USA |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| e-mail: cdapples@cablemt.net | Telephone: (406) 698-4989 |
+ or +--------------------------------+
| kf7kn@amsat.org | |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Webpage: http://www.wtp.net/~ccdapple/ |
+===============================+================================+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:51:16 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 15
I'm *very* upset that my Vancover board does not work with APRS (for those
that don't know, the Vancover board was the first TNC for amateur radio and
dates from 1983).
Point being, at some point we have to say, hey folks, you need to update
your firmware.
Oh, does anyone know how I can use my Heathkit two'er on 144.39? Maybe
slope detect my local digipeater??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dumb tracker ...
From: WA8LMF2@aol.com
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:09:27 EST
X-Message-Number: 16
In a message dated 3/28/2003 10:41:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cdapples@cablemt.net writes:
>In this vein, has anyone tapped into the onstar gps unit on their GM
> vehicle?
>
There's actually a website devoted to exactly this issue:
http://members.cox.net/onstar/
Stephen H. Smith wa8lmf @ aol.com
Home Page: http://wa8lmf.com
Ham Radio/Mobile SSTV page: http://members.aol.com/wa8lmf/ham
APRS Stuff
http://members.aol.com/wa8lmf/aprs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:28:51 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 17
Concerning all the "shoulda, coulda, woulda.." arm chair comments about
how APRS should have been designed... It might be useful to describe the
HAM radio packet environment back in the 1992 time frame:
1) BEACONs (UI packets) were "prohibited" on all packet networks.
2) BEACONS were considered "bad practice" and anyone who sent one was an
"uninformed or bad operator", violating the operational rules for packet
at the time.
3) DIGIPEATING was considered to be "very bad", "obsolete" and a very
innefficient use of packet radio.
4) DIGIPEATING was prohibited on all packet networks. Digipeating was
disabled by defualt in ALL Packet nodes.
Basically, you could not operate APRS ui digipeating packets on any
existing network. Thus we had to start APRS from nothing on a new
frequency. We chose 145.79. And APRS came to what it is today, ONE
digipeater at a time. (with a small glitch when we moved the whole
shebang to 144.39).
Further, (and still sometimes today) APRS, UI packets were condemned,
belittled, rejected, and ignored by "conventional" packet operators.
So we went off on our own frequency...
Just thought that would be useful history for newcommers.
de WB4APR, BOb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:39:27 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 18
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>(for those that don't know, the Vancover board was the first TNC for
>amateur radio and dates from 1983).
Hummh... I would have remembered that we had Vancouver boards back in
1980 maybe? (not sure).. (I think ASCII first became legal in 1878?)
By 1983, my first dual-band VHF-HF Gateway was on the air with my Vic-20
BBS on 10.151 LSB which provided a worldwide link to our 145.01 system in
the Washington DC area.. Not wanting to brag, but by 1992 when I first
published APRS, there were over 500? of my C-64 BBS's running
around the world..
Just reminissing... (sp?)
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:41:38 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 19
Quoting Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>:
>Concerning all the "shoulda, coulda, woulda.." arm chair comments
>about how APRS should have been designed...
Actually, what was being discussed (i.e. the title) was the APRS SPEC which
was ratified in 2000. The "shoulda, coulda, woulda's" are in this very
spec. This is *supposed* to be the spec on how APRS should be designed.
What it should allow, and what it shouldn't allow (and not break in the
process).
>It might be useful to describe the
>HAM radio packet environment back in the 1992 time frame:
>
>1) BEACONs (UI packets) were "prohibited" on all packet networks.
WRONG. UI frames (packets) where the parse and parcel of the TCP/IP (NOS)
networks well before APRS entered the arena. Well before APRS came out, the
DX Cluster folks where experimenting with UI frames to distibute spots, I
distinctly remember a number of applications that could log spots without
being connected to a cluster.
Additionally, it had long been common practice (at least since 1985 when I
first got on) to use UI frames to hold packet roundtables via the big digi
in the area.
Flood routing was discovered by myself in 1986 as a bug in the TNC2
software (if myrelay was not set, it defaulted to 0x00, and was NOT
disabled).
>2) BEACONS were considered "bad practice" and anyone who sent one was
>an "uninformed or bad operator", violating the operational rules for
>packet at the time.
And sending the same APRS frame over and over, (such as tracking the
movements of your house) is still considered bad practice. The "bad
practice" was not conveying anything useful in the networks. Beacons that
contained useful and unique data, such as "mail waiting" from a PBBS, where
not frowned upon as much.
>3) DIGIPEATING was considered to be "very bad", "obsolete" and a very
>innefficient use of packet radio.
And it still is very inefficent use of channel resources. The laws of
physics have not changed because APRS is popular.
>4) DIGIPEATING was prohibited on all packet networks. Digipeating
>was disabled by defualt in ALL Packet nodes.
Not in any of the places I ever visited in the Midwest and South.
Digipeating was enabled, it was just alternate modes provided more reliable
connectivity for end to end QSO'S. In the late 90's I could set up a end to
end Netrom connection from Detroit to New York, all on VHF networks.
>Further, (and still sometimes today) APRS, UI packets were condemned,
>belittled, rejected, and ignored by "conventional" packet operators.
>So we went off on our own frequency...
No one (that I know of) has a issue with a UI packet. The fact that APRS
was so inefficent (flood routing with multiple frames with the same
information) likely ran you into the problems you cite in the early days.
This is nothing unique to APRS. And before you get your shorts in a knot, I
am not critizing APRS. I know why you made the decisions you did. I just
don't think they need to be sugar coated or people mislead on a ongoing
basis.
>Just thought that would be useful history for newcommers.
Bottom line, the APRS spec, which you largely authored, calls out a specific
PID as part of the protocol. If you don't like this, rewrite the spec, not
history. It is not unreasonable for people to depend on this spec nor is it
proper for you to knowingly attempt to rewrite history to divert the focus.
Your accomplishments are great and there is no reason to so grossly mislead
people regarding the history of packet radio.
73
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
