[aprssig] Protocol translation - please no.

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

3rd party packets for the translations back to RF?  More below...

On 6/26/2013 8:34 AM, Andrew P. wrote:
> I was assuming that:

Um, yeah.  No comment.  Definition 5 at 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assume

>
> a) OpenTRAC and APRS would not be transmitted on the same frequencies, 
> so the translator would be functioning as a cross-frequency repeater;

Someone, somewhere, sometime wouldn't realize this design intent and 
would do it anyway.  Long after anyone that knows the ramifications has 
moved on to different pastures.

>
> b) the APRS-IS backbone would never carry native OpenTRAC packets (a 
> separate backbone would be needed to carry the different binary packet 
> format).

Theoretically, if you make them 3rd party packets on RF, it might help?

>
> But you're right; a loop could still occur if two translators were 
> "back-to-back" in the network (either over RF or via I-Gates on the 
> APRS side), because translator#1 wouldn't recognize that the output of 
> translator#2 was a previous input to translator#1 (even without the 
> other issues you mentioned of digipeater/I-Gate mangling of packets).

Yep, and loops are bad, very bad as you already know.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20130626/57a15a08/attachment.html>