[aprssig] IS-to-RF alternate proposal - 'marked beacons'

Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) ldeffenb at homeside.to
Thu Dec 29 20:06:51 EST 2011

Why not the same defaults as supported in the reverse direction?  If you 
don't want your RF packets to go to -IS, then you put NOGATE or RFONLY 
in your path.

By extension, if you DON'T want your -IS packets to go to RF, you put 
something in your comment, say maybe "NORF" as a blank-delimited word or 
at the end of the beacon comment?  IMHO, there are far fewer -IS users 
who would NOT want to be gated that those that DO want to be gated, so 
why clutter the majority of the comments ON RF NO LESS (where bandwidth 
is most limited and packet contents are NOT allowed to be changed by 
IGates) with additional characters?

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

On 12/29/2011 8:00 PM, Jason KG4WSV wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Lee Bengston<lee.bengston at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I suggest a simpler approach that applies a unique (TBD) character
>> sequence in the comment area of a beacon that ID's it as a posit that
>> needs to be gated to RF.
> I was thinking the same thing.  This is the only way I've thought of
> to keep from breaking other parts of the system.
> All new development (after the specification of the identifier)
> devolves to igate and phone-client developers.
> The path of individual packets must be determined by the igate that
> chooses to gate said packets; any attempt to convey # hops, etc is a
> waste of bandwidth.
> -Jason
> kg4wsv
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig

More information about the aprssig mailing list