[aprssig] Identifying TX Igates

David Andrzejewski david at davidandrzejewski.com
Thu Jul 7 19:43:42 EDT 2016

I am using T&. Packets from -IS go out with WIDE2-1 because I have a wide footprint.

What's the verdict on 2& and 3&?


David Andrzejewski
E-mail/iMessage/Jabber: david at davidandrzejewski.com
PGP Key ID: 5EBA8A72

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 21:07, Lee Bengston via aprssig <aprssig at tapr.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Remember this thread?
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Bob Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu> wrote:
>> All IGate operators please read and consider action on this proposal.
>> RX-only IGates kill the functionality of the APRS-IS as a universal system!
>> And they give casual observers the impression that APRS has global
>> connectivity, when in fact, that view has lots of invisible holes because of
>> RX-only IGates.
> ​I'm noticing a few relatively new Rx-only IGates on the air ​using Raspberry Pi's.  My guess is they are using sound card software instead of a hardware TNC and not implementing anything for PTT.
>> Compounding this problem is that we have no way of knowing if people are
>> using the right symbol for their IGate.  Are they using "I" because it is
>> really  a TX Igate, or just because it seems logical?
>> Using http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/symbol.cgi?icon=Iamp&limit=2000 I see 960
>> "I&" Igates
>> Using http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/symbol.cgi?icon=Ramp&limit=2000 I see 130
>> "R&" Igates
>> Maybe we need to have a 3rd symbol, a "T" Overlay so that operators of
>> serious two-way IGates and indicate their dedicated intent to provide good
>> APRS-IS local service.  These guys will take the trouble to indicate a TX
>> Igate.  When we see one of those, we have proof-positive that the IGate
>> includes a two-way TX capability.
> ​The new Rx IGates I've noticed are using the R& symbol, so at least they're indicating what they are.
>> We could even go one step farther.  We could indicate the NUMBER OF HOPS
>> that the IGate uses by default for IS-to-RF packets.  This could help us
>> better manage overlapping IGate coverage...  So how about this plan:
>> I& - is an IGate, but is ambiguous with respect to transmitting
>> R& - means it is definitely an RX only IGate
>> T& - Means it is definitely a TX IGate with one hop path only
>> 2& - means it is a TX igate clobbering two hops in all directions
>> 3& - means it is a TX SPAM GENERATOR , (or a legitimate special case)
>> Etc..
>> Should we do this???
> ​I haven't seen anyone using 2& or 3&, but I've seen a few that are using T&.​
>> Bob, WB4APR
> ​In hindsight it appears this message and the subsequent discussion did some good​.  I'm bringing it up now because it was almost 5 years ago, and perhaps there are several list members out there that were not on the list when this was discussed previously - some of which could be new IGate operators.
> Lee - K5DAT
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160707/19e06d7c/attachment.html>

More information about the aprssig mailing list