[aprssig] IGate Registering for ANSRVR (Messaging failures)

[Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists]

Please reread both cases.  #1 Yes, it is more broken if the HT user doesn't know why they are unable to message.  #2, this has nothing to do with javAPRSSrvr.  It has to do with IGates connected to local (usually home-based or collocated) servers which are connected to the APRS-IS via a restricted feed.  This includes integrated IGates but is not exclusive to integrated IGates.  The RO and RW IGates are connected to different servers as originally stated.

Nothing needs to change and I purposely did not mention your private email to me.  Satgates are purposely receive-only and are not part of this discussion as the satellite frequencies are purposely not gated to from APRS-IS.  You have failed to give a single -communication- reason why receive-only IGates are worthwhile, especially since they can and do interfere with APRS messaging (as shown by my 2 examples).  APRServ was 16 years ago and didn't provide the necessary filtering as demanded by today's users, clients, and Internet connections.  Your intent was good but it did not survive the demands of a greatly expanded APRS-IS.  Roger's user-defined filter software in conjunction with javAPRSSrvr's restricted feed does and has been expanded and improved over the past decade both with javAPRSSrvr and aprsc.

I can't say it any clearer than I have already put forth.  Do as you will but understand that receive-only IGates can and do interfere with APRS messaging as shown in my post.  If they make no sense to you, then you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the issue.  To continue to promote receive-only IGates on the standard APRS frequencies is to knowingly promote IGates that can and do interfere with APRS messaging.

Flame away, I am out of here...

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete at ae5pl dot net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Steve Dimse via
> aprssig
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 4:52 PM
> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig at tapr.org>
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] IGate Registering for ANSRVR (Messaging failures)
> 
> 
> > On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists via aprssig
> <aprssig at tapr.org> wrote:
> >

> This is less broken than if the RO gate is not there? With an RO gate the the
> remote station gets the message but the HT does not get the ACK. Without the
> RO the remote station does not get the message. You aren't actually saying it is
> better the remote station does not get the message, are you?

> I want to be sure I understand this. RO and RW hear the same packet, and are
> connected to the same javAPRSSrvr hub. RO gets the packet to the hub first. So
> of course everything upstream of that server only sees the packet from RO. The
> payload is identical but the path shows it came from RO, and not RW. And now
> what? Who cares what the path says upstream? Everything upstream is not
> filtered or restricted. Or is the mentioned upstream not the issue, and the
> problem happens in the first javAPRSSrvr? Does your software do the dup
> filtering BEFORE it determines which IGate sent a packet and blesses the
> sending callsign for passing through your 'restriction'? Only one IGate
> connection per javAPRSSrvr is fed the messages? If it is this, it sounds like a
> bug. If 10 IGates are connected to a single javAPRSSrvr and all heard the same
> station, all should get the every message to that station, right? If it is something
> else please try to explain again.
> 
> The original APRServ hub offered a way to decrease bandwidth load on pure
> IGates by providing a feed with just messages and associated positions, and that
> is certain not to create problems. Granted there is more traffic now, but home
> bandwidth has also risen, and there aren't that many messages that it would be
> a serious issue for the vast majority of people.

> I'm interested in fault only to the extent it indicates what part of the system
> needs to change. I gave you five good reasons for one-way IGates, not to
> mention they are widespread and since the inception of the APRS IS they have
> been part of the landscape. If they really are causing a problem now the
> question is why and what should be done about it.
> 
> If there are more examples I want to hear them. It makes no sense that an RO
> IGate should interfere with two way messaging, other than discouraging new,
> full IGates (just as your suggestion to create a zero hop IGate does). If there
> really are problems, it seems to me the problems might be caused by these
> things you've added, like the IGate restrictions, or perhaps bugs in your code. In
> this case isn't the correct thing to fix javAPRSSrvr rather than try to eliminate
> one way IGates?
> 
> Steve K4HG