[aprssig] Universal Messaging (and new qAP feedback?)

Robert Bruninga 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...

OK, thanks
Bob, Wb4APR

More information about the aprssig mailing list