Re: HF iGate Verification


James Ewen
 

One should probably define what gating from IS-RF consists of before condemning  the activity.

I-gates by definition should be a two way communications gateway. They should take the activity heard on RF and gate it to the APRS-IS network. They also are supposed to gate APRS message packets (note, APRS message packets, not any other packets) heard locally on the APRS-is stream to RF, and also a single courtesy position packet. This allows an APRS station sending APRS message packet to a station beyond local RF range, and to be able to get a response back, along with a single location packet from the destination station.

What some software authors have done is provided a capability to arbitrarily move traffic from the APRS-IS to the RF network based on the gate operator desires. This is where we can end up with problems because the APRS-IS traffic levels far exceed the capacity of the 1200 baud, VHF system, let alone the 300 baud HF system.

An i-gate set up to gate packets from RF to IS, and to support IS-RF messaging shouldn't flood the RF network and cause detrimental degradation of the RF network. The RF users are the ones in control of the requests for packets to be gated back to RF, as well as stations looking to send APRS messages to stations on HF only.

Yes, there are those who will disregard the system health as a whole... obviously the world needs to know the weather conditions in my backyard every 5 minutes, and to ensure they do, I will transmit at 50 watts through a high gain antenna using WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 so that I can ensure that my packets make it onto the APRS-IS network...

If one wants to get after people abusing the APRS network, how about going after all the people using WIDE1-1 as a path element who are operating at 5 watts or higher? They are going to be much more of a detriment to the APRS network than an HF i-gate that will send an APRS message and courtesy position packet to the 300 baud RF network only upon request of a station operating on HF.

Just a caution that one needs to ensure they know what the issue at hand truly is before spending too much time arguing their side.

I would ask John Brent VA7WPN what they intend with their RF-IS gateway.

James
VE6SRV


On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 7:51 AM Justin Cherington <huntjlc@...> wrote:

“We know it’s bad form but it does something we want (Insert reason here), so we are gonna do it anyway.”

- 50% of APRS users

Lol. 

Join APRSISCE@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.