[aprssig] smart IGates

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

But with a password of -1, he's not even going to be a receiving IGate.  
APRS-IS won't accept ANYTHING from a non-validated connection, even if 
they are ostensibly RF-received packets.  The password of -1 doesn't 
mark packets as unverified, but causes all traffic on that connection to 
not be carried through the APRS-IS, dropped instead at the entry point.  
Since the packets never enter APRS-IS, they won't even have a chance at 
being transmitted elsewhere.  Such a station isn't an IGate as it gates 
nothing in either direction, but is simply an APRS-IS client with local 
RF reception also displayed.

A correctly configured IGate will gate APRS messages from -IS to RF if 
the destination callsign has been recently heard local to the IGate.  
There is no guarantee that the sender of that message, and the author of 
that message's content, is or is not an amateur radio operator.  There 
are web sites that allow direct APRS-IS entry of messages with arbitrary 
source and destination callsigns and user-specified content with no 
verification or validation required.  (Contact me offline if you'd like 
the link).

CW weather reports are no longer carried on the APRS-IS backbone, but 
have been partitioned off into their own network.  Theoretically only 
licensed radio amateur weather stations are still carried on APRS-IS.

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

PS.  
http://wxsolution.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=cwop&thread=65&page=1 
is a posting describing the reasons for the split of CWOP from the 
APRS-IS backbone.  It's a long read, but the best reference to the 
reasoning behind this historical event.

On 6/23/2011 11:43 AM, Andre v Schaijk wrote:
> if your igate is configured correctly you will never transmit any non 
> ham aprs packet on rf.
> All Andrew needs to do is give it a fictional call that is not used on 
> aprs and set the aprs-is password to -1, this will mark his packets as 
> being unverified and therefor will never be transmitted out to RF.
> There are already a lot of aprs frames on the IS that are non ham like 
> the CW weather reports.
>
> 73 Andre PE1RDW
>
> Op 23-6-2011 13:25, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) schreef:
>> You shouldn't IMHO.  Even though the APRS-IS isn't regulated by the 
>> FCC, those of us that run properly configured IGates (read: 
>> bi-directional) are trusting that ALL sources into the APRS-IS is 
>> coming from licensed amateurs.  Without that assurance, more IGates 
>> will be de-commissioned and/or transmitters disabled seriously 
>> crippling the global messaging feature of APRS-IS.
>>
>> A technician's license isn't that hard to qualify for, and with it 
>> comes the identifiable responsibility that the APRS feeds need to have.
>>
>> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
>>
>> On 6/22/2011 2:53 AM, Andrew Elwell wrote:
>>> on a related Q -- if I want to put an RF->IS (only) igate as a fill
>>> in, but don't have a ham licence, how should I name the igate? (since
>>> AFAICT they need a callsign)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>