| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 11.09.03 11:03l 241 Lines 9277 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1887-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Sep 08, 2/7
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<DB0EEO<DB0RES<ON0AR<VK6HGR<
VK3KAY<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030910/1341Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:8088 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1887-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: Homeport
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:01:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 8
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, AE5PL Lists wrote:
>One other thought. Maybe a message to IGATE with the text
>"home",latitude,longitude for a homeport definition and
>"port",latitude,longitude for a non-homeport gate request.
Hummh... My initial reaction was yes....
then no.... My one objective is to find mechanisims to cut down on QRM,
not give new opportunities to create more. Thus the idea was that you
only get ONE definition. Thus you can only add QRM to one place on the
planet at a time. Usually it will be your own backyard where everyone
knows you... but at worst, if you want to force your packets forward to
some other destination, you must give up all others...
SOmething like that...
Bob, WB4APR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Homeport
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:49:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 9
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Bruninga [mailto:bruninga@usna.edu]
>Posted At: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:04 PM
>Subject: [aprssig] RE: Homeport
>
>Thanks, I knew there was something like that, but didnt want to guess
>and screw it up... Do you think then, that there could be any other
>reason for defining X, or just drop it complete from the format?
Not that I can think of.
>This is a good idea. In fact, better... but as you note... there are
>some downsides...
>
>Advantage: Lack of unique dependency...
>Disadvantage:
>1) overlaps, (and added QRM, not less, as we were striving for)
>2) anonymous IGate. I was trying to encourage a more recognizable
>relationship between the user and the IGate.
>3) Igates come and go. The user might want to just nail the
>most reliable
>one down and depend on it...
>
>Weighing all the above, I lean towards explicitly declaring
>the target....
>but no reason why we shouldn't have the LAT/LONG as an
>option. but lazy
>people might use it because they are too lazy to look up
>their local IGate
>and then we have in fact, created a NEW QRM source...
>
>hummhh... which then puts me back to not wanting the LAT/LONG option.
>
>Oh, we would have a Query, so that if a traveler was unsure if he is
>properly registered his HOME port, he can send out Homeport? and ANY
>igate that think's it is, will respond....
No reason why someone couldn't send a ?home message. As far a new QRM,
I tend to disagree. Even in areas of overlap, there will still be
substantially less QRM than WIDE7-7 will create. You are right, IGates
come and go and I would wager that less than half of the users on RF
know who their local IGate is. One of the most popular "features" of
APRS is the fact that I can set a path and not know or care what digi
repeats my packet. Set it once and forget. IMO, this would be
beneficial with a homeport option, as well. Also, see my response to
your second post regarding some more far-reaching uses of this.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete@ae5pl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Homeport
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:57:03 -0500
X-Message-Number: 10
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Bruninga [mailto:bruninga@usna.edu]
>Posted At: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:05 PM
>Subject: [aprssig] RE: Homeport
>
>Hummh... My initial reaction was yes....
>
>then no.... My one objective is to find mechanisims to cut
>down on QRM,
>not give new opportunities to create more. Thus the idea was that you
>only get ONE definition. Thus you can only add QRM to one
>place on the
>planet at a time. Usually it will be your own backyard where everyone
>knows you... but at worst, if you want to force your packets
>forward to
>some other destination, you must give up all others...
Allowing a single homeport definition and then allowing multiple
non-homeport definitions will allow someone to have their packets gated
in multiple areas, true. However, it also allows progression towards
routable APRS while maintaining compatibility with current APRS.
IGate's could have time limits for these settings (so people that forget
will have their non-homeport definitions "killed" for them). And now,
you could have effective emergency communications where EOC's could
effectively communicate with multiple out-of-local-area EOC's without
having excessive paths. And, nothing says a IGate technology couldn't
be used for RF backbones, as well.
While being able to define multiple "outlets" could be abused,
safeguards such as a list timer would minimize those yet give some
extremely flexible operations without overloading the 2m APRS frequency.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete@ae5pl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:03:06 -0700
X-Message-Number: 11
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
To: "TAPR APRS Special Interest Group" <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: [aprssig] Homeport
>The concept of APRS homeport.
Is being used in some areas for some folks that have requested it. Client
software that I know of pretty much handles this without making it any more
difficult than it needs to be.
Will it work? Right now, me thinks no! Why? Because a large
number...maybe the majority of APRS users do not understand what LOCAL
means. So, until they understand LOCAL, the rest is pretty much moot or
IOW just spinning wheels and going no where! LOCAL is user setable in most
instances and in the more popular Igate software too! My Igate is set for
2 hops as being LOCAL. Take a look at http://www.wa6oft.com:8080 and see
the distances we are looking at! You'll see LOCAL meaning well over 300
miles to many! I just looked and I see a WIDE4 at 480.9 miles! WHY?
>1) It should remove the incentive for 200-500 mile travelers to try to use
>WIDE7-7 to get back home
In the Southwest USA, at least, WIDE2-2 will easily reach 200-500 miles.
WIDE,WIDE2-2 will reach 200 to 1000 miles, yet people are comfortable
running WIDE4-4 or TRACE4-4 just so that they can see their own station/s
from a distance and people are comfortable suggesting paths such as these
to newer users! People want their stations in Arizona to be seen by people
in Northern California, Utah and New Mexico! Some people could give a rats
about the APRS-IS and have nothing to do with it....they run the paths they
have because they have a need to be seen somewhere far, far away on RF
only! So, if you are in San Diego running around as WIDE3-3 RF only. You
will more than likely be seen in Arizona! That is NOT local and it's NOT
tactical.
Your idea Bob is likely a good one, but it's putting the cart before the
horse, IMHO. The Igates, for the most part, can handle this pretty much
now without much effort.
So, define what LOCAL is and fix that first....Please! Is LOCAL a County?
Is LOCAL a STATE? Is Local the magic number of 40 with at least 10 of them
being digi's?
Sorry for being a tad bit negative, but I do not see this fixing much and
possibly just adding to the obvious confusion that is out there now.
Respectfully,
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Adding location "SMARTS" to APRS (HLR VLR)
From: "Andrew VK4TEC" <vk4tec@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 05:09:10 +1000
X-Message-Number: 12
Its really funny you talk about this Bob.
I was equating APRS to the GSM mobile phone model.
Maybe we should have a HLR and VLR for APRS stations.
Home location register - where you normally are.
Visitor location register - where you were last heard.
The system could send a message out a igate it knows where you are.
If not then send it to all nodes.
Much like a "last heard at" concept.
This would cut down traffic ?
Just need an online database and some code.
I am willing.
My job is GSM SMS messaging that's what I do day in day out.
I write mysql and perl 90% of the time.
Cheers Andrew vk4tec
tech-software.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Homeport
From: Richard Garcia <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: 08 Sep 2003 15:11:29 -0400
X-Message-Number: 13
The idea sounds great but how about those who run trackers ? Tracker
meaning no laptop, just a TNC and Radio connected to the GPS.
There are plenty of people who run "ammo boxes" and simple trackers
instead of carrying an expensive laptop in their car. Let us not forget
that in most states an computer monitor/tv etc. that can be visible in
the front seat is a no-no. I don't like the idea of having my laptop
stolen and since it is too much of a distraction I don't use a laptop
unless I am shotgun. I am sure many feel the same way.
On road trips many of us can cross 2 or more states without even
stopping which would be the only opportunity to change settings legally.
Sending messages or changing settings should be somthing to be avoided
by all means for mobile use.
Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
