[aprssig] Universal Messaging (and new qAP feedback?)
bruninga at usna.edu
Wed Oct 29 20:02:23 EDT 2008
>> It is the number one problem in the
>> APRS-IS, and that is the complete lack
>> of any visibility to what an Igate does
>> with an APRS-IS to RF packet....
> Actually, this is far from "the number
> one problem". Bottom line: the APRS-IS
> "network" does not support the type of
> reporting that you propose.
Yes, OK, so lets add it.
> If you want that type of reporting on how
> each intermediate network node (that is what
> an IGate is) routes each packet,
No, I did not say that. I don't care at all about all the
intermediate nodes in the APRS-IS. What I care about is only
the interface of the APRS-IS back to RF. That is a very
distinct, problematic and undeterministic issue with the current
> then design a different network with that
> in mind (BTW, no other network that I am
> aware of has nodes report how each packet
> is routed out of the node, for a reason!).
Yes, and neither am I propsing that either. But I am proposing
that the very important interface of the APRS-IS back to the RF
domain should report the results of that interface since it
currently is so problematic. As it is, the APRS-IS has
zip-squat-zero info on that process, and since it is key to the
overall-end-to-end reliability of the APRS connectivity between
users, it is very important to the success of APRS.
> If you want to create a new APRS packet,
> fine. But don't start out by recommending a
> modification to something you don't
> understand as a "starting point".
> In fact, that is a dead end.
Please explain how adding a new "qAX" will break anything?
Adding a new definition should not break any old definitions
should it? OK, Maybe make it a "qGX" if you don't like the
"qAX" idea. Its only a label.
> Have fun! I am out of here...
More information about the aprssig