[aprssig] IGATE message routing bug?

[Steve Dimse]

> On Nov 20, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists <hamlists at ametx.com> wrote:
> 
> My software only uses hops but that is not necessarily the best way for everyone to do it nor is it the way everyone has implemented "local".  But as I detailed earlier, the definition of "hops" is a fluid definition due to the multiple implementations over the years of various digipeating methods inclusive of the ambiguities in the "standard" used today.
> 
The original meaning was clear, back in the days when the networking was simpler. Most IGates used traditional TNCs, where a single path was set in the TNC and not routinely changed. One could have a reasonable expectation that if, say, a station was heard by three hops it would not hear a message sent from an IGate with one hop in its path. While the advances have made that simple case not always applicable, the intent is still quite valid: an IGate should send out all messages that have a reasonable chance of being delivered with the path it will be transmitting those messages. 

And that is where the sole reliance on reception of a position packet runs into trouble in my opinion. A mobile, for example, whose GPS has failed will not get messages. A guy who has mistyped his position won't get messages. 

But even in those things on which I disagree I still recognize the wisdom of letting people choose. If someone feels a distance-based mechanism is best, they ought to be free to use it. But I would like to see the choice being mde by the local IGate operator rather than the IGate software author,

Steve K4HG