[aprssig] NOSaprs update - cross port digi with callsign substitution

[Robert Bruninga]

Glad for the update, but please don't use such a
poor example of a path:

>>> <maiko at pcs.mb.ca> 06/21/05 3:06 PM >>>
>NOSaprs now provides customized crossport 
>digipeating... if we get:   HFUSER>APRS,WIDE
>on HF, we can direct it to go out on VHF as :
>     HFUSER>APRS,N1OHX*,WIDE3-3

I can think of 5 ways this example violates nominal
recommendations for APRS:

1) It is a 3 hop path that is not welcome in
most high density areas of the APRS system

2) It violates the fundamental principle that
the network should not modifying the path or
intent of the sender except to protect the
network from abuse. (or in response to a 
request from the sender).

3) This path modification expands its load on
the network adding to network congestion

4) HF gates have the potential to add lots of
added load to local networks.  It has always been
the solid receommendation that HF packets should
not go more than one hop on VHF so that that
added congestion remains in the "backyard" of
the HF gate and only impacts his local net, and
not any surrounding states or nets that simply
do not want it.  APRS loads should be managed
at the local level and this becomes impossible
when large packet sources like HF gates and
IGates spew their trafffic out more than generally
1 hop in all directions.

5) The only time (IMHO) that the network should
modify the original packet of a sender is to:
a) truncate it, trap it, or otherwise save the netwrork
    from abuse
b) When removing APRS packets from the APRS
system and placing them in another system and
then only in a 3rd party format so that the 
originators intent and original packet remains
intact.

c) When requested by the user by the use of a
specific generic path descriptor pre-defined to
mean "route this as best you can to my given
intentions"  (the example of LOCAL, COUNTY
or whatever)..

Having systems just randomly at the whim of other
packet stations CHANGE people's paths undermines
the integrity of APRS.   Until some other routing
method is developed the senders intent in his  path 
should be honored as long as it is not abusive to the
network.

I would be very incensed to see my packets sent
as WIDE2-2, arriving somehwere else as WIDE3-3
beacuse someone thougth that their area wanted
to make my packets go farther.  Yet said packets
appearing as though I had originated them that
way.

de WB4APR, Bob