[aprssig] Identifying TX Igates

[Lee Bengston]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20160629/19157682/attachment.html>