[aprssig] Questions about Callsigns Used in APRS

[Andrew Rich]

print $t "user VK4TEC-20 pass xxxxx vers perl 1.9"

They better be careful in Australia then 

VK4FKAH breaks the rules

They whacked an F to tell them foundation class

Andrew

-----------------------------
Sent from my iPhone
Andrew Rich
e vk4tec at tech-software.net
w www.tech-software.net
m 0419 738 223

> On 27 Sep 2016, at 02:17, Kenneth Finnegan <kennethfinnegan2007 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu> wrote:
>> ➢ "Total length of logins/callsigns may not exceed 9 characters including
>> the SSID if present."
>> 
>> TNC callsigns are 6 plus up to 2 digit SSID and a hyphen.  But for anything
>> else that can also be put on the map as an object or item the field is 9.
> 
> I'm talking about APRS station callsigns which aren't using TNCs but are directly attached to the Internet. Pete clarified offline that my interpretation was correct; seven character callsigns with one character SSIDs and eight or nine character station callsigns with no SSID are acceptable.
> 
> This does mean that any software parsing callsigns from the APRS-IS can't rely on them being 6x2 in length. Check your buffer lengths everyone!
>  
>> 
>> > 2. What is the minimum length for SSn-N aliases? Two? One? Probably two to
>> > meet the APRS minimum of three when the 'n' is appended?
>> 
>> The minimum length of any callsign or object/item in APRS is 3 characters.
>> SSn-N seems to work, Im not sure about how actual hardware digipeaters
>> handle say Sn-N?
> 
> I came to that realization that that 3 minimum dictated 2 char minimum for SSn-N. Aliases must be 2-5 characters.
>  
>> 
>> > 5. Is GATE still a valid special handling token worth documenting and
>> > supporting?
>> 
>> Only a dual Port TNC or other VHF to HF gateway needs to handle it.
> 
> Woah... I thought VHF to HF digis weren't at all allowed.
>  
>> 
>> > Do HF stations requesting GATE actually want to land on everyone's VHF
>> > LANs...
>> 
>> Aboslutely not.  That would be the worst operating practice.  Unless someone
>> is calling MAYDAY, etc...  so leave it in.
> 
> So we don't want regular HF to VHF traffic either? Only for MAYDAYs seems like an incredibly small use case for developers to write in support for GATE on multi-port digipeaters. Any of our 30m operators want to chime in with what they want these days? Is it good enough to have your own I-gates and rely on RF-gate routing for any cross-band capabilities? That deprecates the GATE alias.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> --
> Kenneth Finnegan
> http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160927/78411257/attachment.html>