[aprssig] IGATE message routing bug?

Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) ldeffenb at homeside.to
Sat Nov 19 23:32:19 EST 2016 

Taking the discussion back to the public list so others don't ask the 
same questions later...

On 11/19/2016 10:42 PM, Jim Alles wrote:
> "Changing the port to which received packets are delivered has 
> absolutely no effect on "fixing" anything."
>
> I believe you are wrong - the packets inserted into the unidirectional 
> port are not inserted into the heard hash table.
>
> The APRS-IS is smart enough to not try to send messages back to you to 
> transmit them - you aren't there.

But I don't understand just what you think that "fixes"?

Remote operators are still showing up on the APRS-IS and there's still 
no indication that they came through a non-transmitting IGate.

Not being in the heard table doesn't do anything as far as I can tell, 
except prevent your UDP-injecting IGate from receiving messages that it 
wouldn't likely have done anything with anyway?

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


>
> ?
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) 
> <ldeffenb at homeside.to <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>
>>     http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>>     <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/e5a08286/attachment.html>

More information about the aprssig mailing list