[aprssig] IGATE message routing bug?

Sat Nov 19 22:38:34 EST 2016

One IGate delivering packets to port 14580 does not affect any other 
IGate's connection nor the ability for other IGates to receive messages 
directed to any received station.  The APRS-IS is not "smart".  A 
message addressed to a specific station is delivered to ALL IGates that 
have recently gated packets from the addressed station.

Changing the port to which received packets are delivered has absolutely 
no effect on "fixing" anything.

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

On 11/19/2016 10:09 PM, Jim Alles wrote:
> Please, follow the logic of this argument to the end.
>
> "If the only Igate in an area is RX only, that definitely breaks the 
> system."
>
> I am picking on this statement, not the person who made it, because it 
> has been echoed so many times.
>
> And it is wrong.
> Every variation, it is the wrong battle.
>
> It isn't that they are receive only. The real problem is, we RX-only 
> IGate operators-who-gave-up-on-messaging-because-it-was-broken are 
> sending our received traffic to the *wrong port* on the APRS-IS 
> servers. We have had little choice, because no client software 
> available (AFAIK) has the functionality coded to send to the APRS-IS 
> server UDP port 8080 when appropriate (1).
>
> The IGate client software(s) would be much improved with the ability 
> to route either to either a restricted feed port (TCP 14580), with 
> messaging support, or the unidirectional port; dynamically as 
> determined by local operating conditions. No packet left behind (tm ;-).
>
> Think about it. To me, it seems practical, backwards-compatible, 
> doesn't concern the servers, and I think there are a couple or three 
> developers out there right now that are in a position to - and might 
> be interested in - improving things.
>
> (1) It was actually Mr. Finnegan who just made me aware that such a 
> port existed, on another forum. My gratitude to you, Kenneth!
>
> 73,
> Jim (you can call me grandpa) Alles
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Kenneth Finnegan 
> <kennethfinnegan2007 at gmail.com <mailto:kennethfinnegan2007 at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     This "Rx-only Igates are breaking APRS" rhetoric is problematic;
>     I've had several of my users tell me that they used to operate
>     Rx-only I-gates with scanners or old mobile rigs with blown PAs,
>     until they saw something online telling them that Rx-only I-gates
>     are an active harm to the APRS network, at which point they do
>     what seems like the sensible thing and dismantle their I-gate and
>     e-waste the radio. Did we really mean to tell them that no I-gate
>     is better than an Rx-gate? Having read most of the "Rx-only
>     I-gates are evil" posts, even I can't tell if that's what some of
>     the original authors meant or not.
>
>     We've been doing a very poor job of effectively communicating the
>     advantages and disadvantages of Rx-only I-gates to the public, and
>     they're getting very confused because of it.
>
>     --
>     Kenneth Finnegan
>     http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/ <http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/>
>
>     On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:32 PM, <steve at dimse.com
>     <mailto:steve at dimse.com>> wrote:
>
>
>         > On Nov 19, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Randy Love <rlove31 at gmail.com
>         <mailto:rlove31 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >
>         > Why don't you start by going around to every every RX only
>         IGate operator and convincing them that they it is wrong to
>         not have a two-way IGate? If the only Igate in an area is RX
>         only, that definately breaks the system.
>         >
>         This is the perfect example of why having a central authority
>         is not workable.
>
>         Having a one way IGate as the only one one in an area is only
>         bad for one reason, which is that someone who might be willing
>         to set up a two way IGate does not do it because he thinks
>         there already is one. But this does not break the system.
>         Local operators need to coordinate their IGates, not have
>         standards enforced from a venerated few.
>
>         There are legit reasons to have one way IGates. Chief among
>         them is that a US IGate operator is putting his license and/or
>         financial well-being on the line. I converted my IGate to one
>         way on the day Dale Heatherington released the verification
>         algorithm in aprsd. From that day forward the Part 97
>         exemption for safe haven is an automatic message forwarding
>         system no longer applied. The risk of action is relatively
>         low, but definitely non-zero.
>
>         I think it is self-evident that having a one-way IGate is
>         better than having none. If you are trying to force out one
>         way IGates, you are saying your opinion is more important than
>         others. I have fought long and hard for the APRS Internet
>         System to be an inclusive place. If some hams only feel
>         comfortable one-way gating, they can still play.
>
>         Steve K4HG
>         _______________________________________________
>         aprssig mailing list
>         aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>
>         http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>         <http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     aprssig mailing list
>     aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>
>     http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>     <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/20161119/7a3ee0bf/attachment.html>