[aprssig] Stealth digis

[David Andrzejewski]

I would wonder if it's legal for digis to do neither? Wouldn't they have to do one or the other to satisfy ID requirements? (In the US at least)

- Dave/KD8TWG

> On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:24, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) <ldeffenb at homeside.to> wrote:
> 
> They definitely should (IMHO) insert their call if they digipeat something.  And without a posit beacon (even if they choose to do ambiguity), there's no way to do any path analysis of their participation in the network.
> 
> But then, I guess it falls under the "to each his own" category.
> 
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
> 
>> On 11/5/2014 11:12 AM, Andrew P. wrote:
>> Is there a reason to have stealth (non-beaconing) digipeaters? There are some folks in my area who want to hide their digis from the general public (supposedly to keep excess traffic off those digis). But, if those digis support WIDEn-N aliases, they should still digipeat general traffic in their range, and no one will know who is doing it (unless those digis add a trace entry of themselves to the path).
>> 
>> So what would be the point? One digi beacon every 30 minutes wouldn't clog the channel. And, unless those digis explicitly didn't support standard aliases (WIDEn-N or the obsolete RELAY and WIDE), they would still digi general traffic (not just the owner's traffic).
>> 
>> Just can't figure out why someone would want a stealth digi.
>> 
>> Andrew, KA2DDO 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20141105/c532ab88/attachment.html>