[aprssig] Compromise WinLink object proposal

[Bill Vodall]

> I agree with Steve.  And to add to the argument, I would guess (and hope)
> that most IGate operators know what is going on in their local area so
> gating the explicit calls should not be a big deal.

I disagree with Steve...   This is how most Igate operators would learn
about new resources in their neighborhood.   Word of mouth takes ages
to get around even for those involved in local ham communites.  That's why
we need resouces like this.

> On Behalf Of Steve Dimse
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:34 PM
> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Compromise WinLink object proposal
> 
> On 2/15/05 at 12:04 PM Bill Vodall <wa7nwp> 
> >Gating by explicit call won't work.  Too much trouble when stations
> >are continuously coming and going.
> >
> I disagree. First, forget about "and going"...if a station goes, it stops
> sending packets to the APRS IS, and therefore to the RF network, stations
> leaving take care of themselves, 

Yes.  That's certainly true.  A non-issue.

> that is the whole point behind using
> these beacons, when the node is on, its packets are on the APRS IS, and when
> the  station is off, no packets appear on the APRS IS.

Exactly.

> Second, how many of these nodes are expected to be in the range of any given
> IGate? With 500 registered in the country and fewer active, five or ten
> seems a > reasonable maximum number. 

That's a good ballpark figure.  We're looking at about 10 active in Western Washington
out of maybe 20 on the Winlink list.

> like they add a hundred a day. So maybe an IGate operator would need to edit
> their IGate call file two or three times a year on average, more in big  cities,

Two or three times a year?  Four to six month latency on the data?   I thought
we're being conservative with 30 minute net cycle times.   After all, isn't
APRS supposed to be a real time tactical information system?

If we had an "incident", wouldn't it be cool if termporary echolink and winklink
systems came on line and were automatically displayed for folks in the field?

> To me, that seems like a small price to pay to protect local RF users,

It's not an issue.  We have screw ups here from time to time and the network
gets flooded with extraneous packets.  After a couple days, when somebody
eventually notices, we fix the problem, blame it on Tim and send 53's to
Dave.  The network grows and gets better.  We learn things.  Everything is
working fine.  That's exactly what would happen if the genie was let out of the
bottle and we had a hundred nodes broadcast for a short time instead of the
ten we wanted.

The magic of having an automated system far outweighs the risk of these
little hickups.


> importantly to prevent the negative attitude that might prevent other
> amateur > systems from being accepted on the APRS stream in the future.

Firenet had this problem.  They resolved it with technology, built an impressive
parallel system and we're all benefiting from it.   Taking small risks is how we make
progress.

>
> Steve K4HG

Bill - WA7NWP