[aprssig] IS-to-RF proposal (rev b)

Andre aprs at pe1rdw.demon.nl
Thu Dec 29 16:36:59 EST 2011

Op 29-12-2011 22:16, Bob Bruninga schreef:
> As I said:
>> I certainly do not want to break anything in the APRS-IS.
>> But I am confused as to why this change was made and why
>> all the server code is now vulnerable to the original spec.
> So, to move on....
> Since this limits us from any future expansion of the APRS-IS, I have
> revised the proposal to be compliant with this new APRS-IS restriction.  Now
> any implementation of the RGATE function will have to be done by new authors
> entirely within new RGATE code.
> But this is ok, it just places more burden on the RGATE author to filter,
> trap or throttle packets  that he might want to inject into his local RF.
> It also places responsibility for vigilance on all local users to be aware
> of their local RGATE operation and to react to any unwarranted channel load.
> We still need to standardize this function so that it does not evolve
> willy-nilly... I still want to imply standards on APRS-IS injecting
> stations, and mobiles in particular, to use only the existing APRS standard
> rates.  And to use the original DECAY algorithm that decays the rate when
> not moving.
> I'd also like to see standards for implementing the RGATE SETTINGS so that
> they can be consistently applied where desired.
> So here is the updated proposal.
> http://aprs.org/aprs12/IS-to-RF-b.txt
> Bob, Wb4APR
 > What would need to be changed to allow this?

To much, igates need to be rewritten, clients need to be rewritten.
Have a look at my APRS-UDP proposal and see that it can be used NOW with 
exsisting digipeater software (DigiNed) and clients.

73 Andre PE1RDW

More information about the aprssig mailing list