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

[Andre]

Op 30-12-2011 3:34, Steve Dimse schreef:
> The three paths are for the no hop, one hop, and two hop ranges for 
> the IGate. The IGate operator decides, for example, that someone 75 
> miles away should be send with two hops, while someone 5 miles away 
> should be send with no hops. This is NOT something the user sets. Read 
> the proposal carefully. 
That makes no sense to me, the closer I get to the igate the lower the 
hopcount will be?, that is completly contradicting the proportional 
digipaths system where direct is every minute, 1 hop is every 2nd minute 
and 2 hops is every 4th minute. pathing is realy getting messed up this way.
>> even if paths are selected on some calculation yet to work out there still has to be an option to select if you want to be gated or not.
> Why? If you are sending your position to the APRS IS you are voluntarily putting it out where it can be seen by millions of Internet users. Are you really going to object if it is also sent out to 25 people on RF?
People are already objecting or at least sugesting there should be an 
option to opt-out or opt-in
>> connecting to aprs-is is just as hard for many clients, if I want to connect to aprs-is with ui-view I have to figure out what server I connect to, I have to fill in the aprs-is pass and I have to work out what filter to use and where to put that filter, especialy the filter is a big stumbeling block for many users, software evolves, it might not be plug and play right now but at least it works right now and will most likely be plug and play soon enough.
> Exactly my point. Windows users put up with this crap for years because they did not know better. They do now.
The they will demand clients to be able to directly interface.
>>> And if I understand this correctly, as I travel I need to edit those files to the IGate closest to me, correct?
>> No you don't have to edit any files, untill clients are smart enough to adjust the path themselfs you only have to set the path for the right udp gate, clients can be changed to automate that and probably will when users demand it.
> Yes, that is what I mean, as I travel north I need to change my configuration to connect to first the Miami IGate, then the Orlando IGate, then the Atlanta IGate, and so on. Users will not accept this.
Then they will demand that client adjust the path for them
>>>> Actions speak louder then words.
>>>>
>>> I agree. And Bob's actions in APRS exceed yours by quite a bit.
>> You make it sound like I was not part of the small group that got aprs moving in the netherlands and elevated it from 2 wide only digipeaters to network we have today. Nice to know my work is appreciated
> That is not at all what I said. You were making it sound like Bob was all talk. He has done a hundred times more than you've done for APRS, like say, creating it. No matter what you have done, Bob has done more. Much more. He does not deserve to spoken of as someone who is nothing but words!
>
> Steve K4HG
fair enough but you have to admit that a lot of his projects never made 
it past ideas, time will tell if this mgate or rgate idea actualy 
becomes something, there is probably room for both and the sysops decide 
what they want, all Bob and I can do is give the options, bob has the 
advantage that he controlls the proposed specs and I have the advantage 
of an already working system.

73 Andre PE1RDW