| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 06.06.03 15:02l 266 Lines 12217 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1429-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 31, 3/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 030605/1340Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:1725 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1429-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Coverage Map
From: "Joel Black" <w4jbb@charter.net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 07:40:26 -0500
X-Message-Number: 8
I have used Radio Mobile located at http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html.
There are instructions on this website for its use. The measurements are
all metric so you must convert (or not depending on your preference). This
program can also be used as an APRS application.
GL es 73,
Joel B. Black, W4JBB
w4jbb@charter.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Broadband on Power --City(not FCC) enforces radio law and busts
CBer
From: "Brian Riley (maillist)" <n1bq_list@wulfden.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:54:06 -0400
X-Message-Number: 9
The only "distance" specified anywhere with regards to hams that I an think
of is the proximity to the Canadian border and power restrictions on 70 cm.
But that is not really what you are talking about.
On 5/29/03 19:46, "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com> wrote:
[deleted]
>Remember, virtually all VHF licenses for business use are planned
>geographically and as such considered a 'specific' or 'short' distance.
>CB by it's rules is limited to 150miles.
>
>Commercial HF stations and HAM radio stations have no 'distance'
>limits at all in ANY regulations that I am aware of, and as such should
>be exempt right there.
>
>HAM radio is NOT for the general public either.
>
>In fact, if someone knows of ANY regulation that specifies 'distance'
>as a limiting factor with relation to ANY HAM radio activity, other
>than for the 'bad' things, I would love to see it pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: raw frames
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 00:40:35 -0400
X-Message-Number: 10
Hi folks,
Is there a way to find raw frames on findu or any other site? I've
checked some sites that offer queries, but they already assume it's
either weather or position reports. In other words, they are already
interpreted in some fashion. I'd just like to look at some frames
regardless of what they may be.
Thanks a bunch and 73,
--Alex KR1ST (framing frames)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Email Line Length
From: WA8LMF2@aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:20:13 EDT
X-Message-Number: 11
In a message dated 5/31/2003 5:18:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bruninga@usna.edu writes:
>ALso, I frequently use text colums:
>
> Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
> -------- -------- --------
> D1 D2 D3
> D4 D5 D6
> D7 D8 D9
>
> Is it unreasonable to expect it to show up perfectly in other's Email?
NO! Many mail systems now use proportional-spaced fonts (different letters
have different widths) so anything columnated with spaces is guaranteed not
to reproduce properly on some systems.
Every time you post the satellite predictions, I have to copy the
paragraph, paste it into a word processor and then set the font to Courier
or Andale Mono to make it readable.
Your sample looked OK because you happened to use the same letter in every
cell! Try with some "W"s mixed with some "I"s (upper-case "i").
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS Internet System Design Philosophy
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:45:17 -0400
X-Message-Number: 12
On 5/31/03 at 7:08 AM HamLists@ametx.com (AE5PL Lists) sent:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Steve Dimse [mailto:k4hg@tapr.org]
>>Posted At: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:07 PM
>>Subject: [aprssig] APRS Internet System Design Philosophy
>>
>>needs of the APRS IS. Still, I am a strong advocate of the
>>original design, because I feel that it offers the best
>>chance of being implemented given the resources available to
>>an amateur project like this. Most importantly, it requires
>>the cooperation of a smaller number of people, and the
>>monitoring of a smaller number of servers.
>
>Except that a tiered system is already in place. One premise you have
>stated is that the advocates of a tiered network say no clients should
>connect to the core. Whether they should or shouldn't is not the
>deciding factor for having a tiered network. See below.
A hub network is also in place. The fact is, neither of these designs are
implemented as well as they should be, and neither architecture should be
judged by its present implementation. I thought you and I had agreed to
that in a prior discussion just a week or two ago.
>>The shortcomings in the two tier system are it requires
>>the cooperation of a much larger number of people, the
>>multiple servers are more confusing to users, and it is
>>much harder to monitor the system.
>
>In actuality, a tiered system takes less coordination than a large
>number of core servers because the lower tier servers do not need to be
>coordinated.
Huh? You are then not advocating a tiered plan, but anarchy? I don't think
so. Do you really mean that every hub in the lower tier is free to do
whatever they want? Connect to every other core and tier two hub, and all
the aprsd IGates? Of course not. Each tier two operator must cooperate with
the plan. Also, all the IGates and users must cooperate, so they connect to
the correct place in this multi-tiered network. Users must somehow be
informed of the port capabilities of each individual tier two server, and
configure their system appropriately.
In a centralized approach, everyone is connected to the right place,
because there is no wrong place. Port assignements and capabilities are
standard, not need to pass configuration to the user.
>Yes, it increases the complexity of the network,
>especially when people try to interconnect non-core servers to many
>other non-core servers. With the core matrix properly designed and
>implemented (which it is now), the need for these lower level
>interconnects is diminished if not eliminated (this is a hint to all of
>those that think they need 5, 10, or more outbound connections from
>their server).
But the monitoring for these badly configured servers is much more
difficult when there is a tiered approach. With a central plan, the handful
of servers' connect lists could be automatically monitored for servers
connected in multiple places.
>>Advocates of the two tier approach like to say that it
>>allows more filtering options, but there is no filtering
>>asecond tier server could do that a core server could not.
>
>Except that, as you have indicated, the core servers need to be like
>configured for ease of use (especially with features like
>rotate.aprs.net). Without creating a port usage nightmare, attempting
>to put regional filter ports, specialty ports, etc. across multiple core
>servers that give all users what they want is an extremely difficult
>coordination effort and one I suspect might be difficult to implement
>with the different software implementations on the core servers and the
>different time zones for work schedules.
This argument is not in any way one of filtered vs. non-filtered. No
filtering being done in a tier 2 server could not be done at tier 1. There
is nothing that says a central server cannot provide additional ports for
those people that like them, just as fourth does now.
>A case in point was the
>configuration changes needed just to put fourth into the interconnection
>matrix took most of a day to implement with many packets being lost
>between RF networks.
No packets were lost. findU got all of them, they existed, there was no
tree falling in the woods without anyone to hear it. What happened was
users on aprsfl were isolated from some other segments of the net for a few
hours. There would have been no disruption at all had the new core server
not been an active level 2 server with a large number of users already. One
could add fifth.aprs.net without any disruption, if the new machine did not
already have users.
Yes, it took perhaps 12 hours to coordinate the activities of 4 very
active, involved, and intelligent people to implement this very simple
change. This is exactly why the two tier approach is more dangerous.
Imagine if a change needed to be made to every tier two server...how long
would that take??? How would you be able to monitor if all had done it? How
would you convey changes to the users? And how long would it take all of
them to implement the changes in their config files.
Thank you for demonstrating my point so clearly!
>I would say that keeping the core manageable and mirrored is of the
>utmost importance for reliability and usability. As it stands now, the
>users know that they can connect to port 23 or 10152 at the core for a
>full feed and 1314 for a message-only feed. Port 10151 is now a
>duplicate of 10152 due to the network problems encountered with having a
>history port on the core servers. second and fourth both support 14580
>as a client customizable filter port. There is talk about first and
>third adding this port in the near future. That would give all users
>the ability to say "I want to see all data, messages only, or just what
>I tell the server I want to see."
Exactly my point, this is not an argument about whether filtering should be
available to the users, only about how complex the network needs to be to
provide the services. As you point out, the core server approach is capable
of giving every user whatever they want or need, and is in fact quite close
to actually implementing this.
>Powerful for the core servers but it still does not negate the need for
>non-core servers. Many tier 2 servers provide country or region
>specific services. Some provide special ports for low bandwidth
>connections needed by the CW program. Others provide specialized
>SatGate ports that reduce the data flow to the client to almost nothing.
>As long as hams come up with special needs, there will be a place for
>non-core servers.
I have no great objection to this....but I think this is different from the
tier 2 concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I've understood it, the
plan is to try to get all users to connect to tier 2, reserving the central
hubs for IGates and hub interconnects. This is the plan I've been arguing
against. If someone wants to create a substream and say "if you just want
callsigns ending in 'G' connect to me", that's their business. Even things
that are actually useful, like some bandwidth limited people wanting
regional feeds, are fine (though again I see no reason the most popular of
these couldn't be implemented on the core servers, and any regional feed
can be gotten within client programs using port 14580, so that the added
complexity of additional servers is not needed even for this). Fine, that
is, assuming that these subfeeds are correctly configured to provide the
feed they advertise, and to send data upstream to the APRS IS. There is the
rub...who monitors this?
I have the ability to connect to a server and verify its data. I can send
test packets and look for it in the stream. I can read the status port
messages and tell whether a server is appropriately configured or not. Most
users do not have this ability. Someone needs to look out for those people
without the skills to check for themselves. Far easier to do with 4 or 5
servers than dozens or hundreds.
Even if these unmonitored servers are there (and I'm not in any way
proposing preventing anyone from doing whatever they want), the presence of
a central core, with capcacity to serve all users, should be the "official"
design of APRS IS. People can do whatever they want on top of that, but
there ought to be a simple standard configuration to give to new users.
"rotate.aprs.net port 23" is a simple standard configuration. Saying "go to
http://www.ahubswe.net/aprs_stat.asp, then connect to the status port 14501
of each of these servers to see which ports they support", or have each
tier 2 operator chime in saying "connect to me on " followed by a long port
list" is not the way to get newbies up and running when they ask for help!
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
