| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 12.09.03 10:08l 239 Lines 9455 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1896-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Sep 09, 3/8
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030911/1403Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:8139 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1896-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: "Wes Johnston" <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:28:26 -0400
X-Message-Number: 13
You are correct.... I've thougth about it, and I'm sold on grid squares for
the numbering system.
My IGATE would be called EM93TW . The six char length fits perfectly with
our callsigns. We need to make sure that each IGATE can register itself as
several grid squares... one is too small.
There seems to be no facility on findu to ID IGATES, but there is a search
near function. Would be nice if you could use findu to locate the nearest
IGATE to a lat/lon. Even have the IGATEs listed on findu by grid square.
If you can find it on FINDU, it's active, right?
Now, each name for an IGATE must be geographically keyed... at first name of
a city sounds good, but there are many "Sumter"s in the USA. CLLI would
solve that (SMTRSC), but does it work for germany where there are hundreds
of villages with SCHW as the first four consanants in the name? Do CLLI
codes work outside the USA? I found http://www.telcodata.us/tenten.html to
look up US names....
Wes
PS: Gosh, I thought The Rose didn't get anywhere b/c no one knew where the
nodes were geographically... really not a USA centric numbering problem....
well let's just say, even with *that* numbering system, people in the USA
couldn't figure it out either! <grin>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:53:09 -0500
X-Message-Number: 14
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrick Karp [mailto:pkarp@conwaycorp.net]
>Posted At: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:10 AM
>Subject: [aprssig] Re: Homeport
>
>Out of that 50% do you think are trying to get packets back
>home? ;-) I
>would think that if anyone wishes to use such a feature they
>would learn the
>Igates callsign.
There are multiple IGates that use different symbols from the "norm" and
some are 24/7 and some aren't so identifying your local IGate is not as
simplistic as represented. But, you and Bob miss an underlying point:
if you use the IGate's callsign then you lose the ability to ensure only
one home port. Why? Because an IGate connected to a server filtered
port passing only range filtered packets will not see when another IGate
in another area is being told that it is now the home port. Thus, the
algorithm as Bob and you propose breaks. Using a generic callsign
allows IGate sysops to specifically request messages for the generic
callsign.
>network. After
>>all, if users don't get familiar with their local network, then we are
>>doomed to failure.
"Doomed to failure"? Come on, Bob. Usage of a home port is much less
likely to cause problems than the incessant use of
RELAY,WIDE7-7,TRACE7-7. Knowledge of the local APRS network should be
focused on utilization, not topology for the everyday user. IGates
change. Digis change. Requiring each user to learn the ever changing
topology to make use of APRS somewhat also defeats one of the features
of APRS, doesn't it. In other words, what you are saying is "I don't
have to know what resources are nearby to use them in APRS EXCEPT if I
want to use a home port."
>>way because it is the only way to educate users. We must
We did that much more successfully last Saturday here in north Texas,
Bob. And we didn't have to withhold anything.
Finally, lets get down to the "brass tacks" of what a home port as you
propose it is good for. It is so ALL of my packets will be seen on RF
in my home location when I am not at home, right? Messaging is already
handled transparently for the user so that doesn't factor in. Hmm. Is
that really using APRS as a tactical protocol?
At least Wes' subscription idea would be initiated by a ham in the local
area to do some tracking of the "remote" station. Seems to me this
would be much less likely to cause unwanted QRM (at least someone in the
local area is stating "I want to see that station's packets" :-).
And what about the occasional "I want to know where X is?" Then send a
message to X and if they are in range of an IGate, you will know where
they are.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete@ae5pl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:13:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 15
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
>The HOMEPORT idea is a good one. We could be using it right now
>to watch some of our locals on a trip.
>
>But... APRS needs to more towards more abstraction, not less. IGATES
>come and go (as they should) and knowing the exact callsign to use is
>difficult to find and error prone. Better to use something like a region
>indicator (PNW, etc) or my favorite, Grid Square [CN87].
Or a 3rd solution is to try to make the IGates more permanent and not
coming and going all the time...Not arguing, just pointing out the 3rd
option..
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: "Daron J. Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:34:28 -0700
X-Message-Number: 16
>>The HOMEPORT idea is a good one. We could be using it right now
>>to watch some of our locals on a trip.
>>
>>But... APRS needs to more towards more abstraction, not less. IGATES
>>come and go (as they should) and knowing the exact callsign to use is
>>difficult to find and error prone. Better to use something like a region
>>indicator (PNW, etc) or my favorite, Grid Square [CN87].
Excuse me for being a bit new, but if you operate an Igate, shouldn't it
be relatively permanent? Seems like the infrastructure would be much
more reliable and routing would be easier if Igates were static.
Why "should" Igates come and go?
Grid square sounds like the most universal identifier to me.
N7HQR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 17
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, AE5PL Lists wrote:
>simplistic as represented. But, you and Bob miss an underlying point:
>if you use the IGate's callsign then you lose the ability to ensure only
>one home port. Why? Because an IGate connected to a server filtered
>port passing only range filtered packets will not see when another IGate
>in another area is being told that it is now the home port.
This must not and cannot be allowed. No filtered feed should filter
MESSAGE packets. Because MESSAGE packets are directed packets and must be
seen by ALL Igates in order to assure the integrity of the APRS-IS system.
If filtered IGates are also filtering messages, then we have got to fix
that as our first priority.
All Igates have to see all messages in order to be able to serve as the
point-of-delivery of message traffic between APRS users. Please tell me
that filtered feeds are not filteting out message traffic?
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: wes@johnston.net
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 13:46:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 18
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:53:09 -0500, "AE5PL Lists" wrote:
>simplistic as represented. But, you and Bob miss an underlying point:
>if you use the IGate's callsign then you lose the ability to ensure only
>one home port. Why? Because an IGate connected to a server filtered
>port passing only range filtered packets will not see when another IGate
Maybe we need a special message type for IGATE assignments which will
always pass thru a filter? When I setup a filter, I use Range, and t/m for
all message types. If the homeport assignment message came thru the
filters, then other IGATEs would see the message and know that the torch
had been passed to another IGATE.
Wes
ham callsign: kd4rdb
find me: http://wesvan.zapto.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Homeport
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:49:36 -0500
X-Message-Number: 19
>Excuse me for being a bit new, but if you operate an Igate, shouldn't it
>be relatively permanent? Seems like the infrastructure would be much
>more reliable and routing would be easier if Igates were static.
igates should be pretty much static. however, people can and do set
themselves up as an igate, for a few hours, or days. also,
power/os/software problems will happen.
i've had an igate up here for years kc6ete-1, only down for uncontrollable
problems. however, it's an ad-hoc thing.
>Why "should" Igates come and go?
windows.
stable igates are a good thing, but we take what we can get.
the trick is to set things up so it works both ways.
if there were a coordinator somewhere, then i could tell it where my 'home'
is, and it could find the closest igate, on a list of operational igates.
wether that's close enough, is another, and more complicated question.
if we are smart, we'll put the smarts in the system, and let the trackers
and other clients be relatively or completely 'dumb'. that's the model
that broadcast tv followed.. the transmitters have tight requirements, and
are expensive, but there's few of them. the receivers are cheap and
sloppy, and there's millions of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
