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

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

What range, what rate, and even IF such gating will occur will still be 
up to the local IGate operator, just as today the choice to gate or not 
gate specific callsigns and at what rate is up to the IGate operators.  
Some may choose to gate, others may not.  Some may choose to gate only 
those within their calculated no hop RF range, some may choose to gate 
the full range of the nearest WIDE2+ digi, some may choose something 
else.  And as I believe is universally accepted, the IGate operator will 
choose the path(s) under which such gating will occur.

I'm only suggesting that if a gate/nogate preference is agreed to at the 
originating station level, that the default (no text) be to gate from 
-IS to RF at the discretion of IGate operators and only add text to 
those beacons that do NOT want to be -IS to RF gated as they're beacons 
will be staying on -IS anyway and it is parallel to the default of RF to 
-IS gating unless NOGATE or RFONLY is specified.

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

On 12/29/2011 9:08 PM, Andre wrote:
> Op 30-12-2011 2:06, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) schreef:
>> 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
>>
> not a bad idea but you better run a test how large a range you can 
> suport on a 1200 baud channel without making it unusable for local 
> users, I'm afraid that it might be a very small range.
> I have done a simular test a while ago to see how large a range I 
> could stream on 9k6, about 500 km gave a near 100% load.
>
> 73 Andre PE1RDW
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>