[aprssig] SATgates ? (again)

[Greg Troxel]

Robert Bruninga via aprssig <aprssig at tapr.org> writes:

> I'm not trying to change the APRS-IS.  I'm trying to fix the satgate
> problem by asking any author of IGate code to include a SATgate mode that
> will ignore direct, undigipeated packets.  When any authors respond with
> the feature, then we will have a SATgate we can recommend for people to use.

This feels kludgy.

I wonder if instead you can tweak the notion of duplicate detection.
Specifically:

  Why is it necessary?  Would storing data from multiple paths be overly
  burdensome in resources?  Allowing that could enable more interesting
  analysis.

  Even if dup filtering is in general necessary, perhaps packets from
  satellites could be given a pass on dup detection.

Letting the satellite-digipeated packets be stored anyway seems far
preferable to not reporting validly-heard packets.

73 de n1dam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20160124/9cf47198/attachment.asc>