[aprssig] Txt messaging

Kenneth Finnegan kennethfinnegan2007 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 14:49:18 EDT 2017

Can someone explain to me how Rx-only I-gates are crippling near-by RF-gates?

Sure, Rx-only I-gates aren't as good as if a full RF-gate is installed
in the same location, but how is shutting them down an improvement for
the APRS network? All Rx-only I-gates do is improve the reliability of
RF-to-IS traffic (include message acks and replies).

If an area only has Rx-only I-gate coverage, turning off those I-gates
doesn't fix anything, it just breaks every other use of APRS which
relies on RF-to-IS gating that isn't layer 4 APRS messaging.
Kenneth Finnegan, W6KWF

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:14 AM, . <groups.0acf at headquarters.earth> wrote:
> I agree with this.
> And as rx-only igates continue to proliferate and degrade the network we need a mechanism to deal with this.
> Perhaps something (if it already doesn't exist, that I'm aware of) that can be put in one's path to avoid or route around rx-only igates. Something that indicates that you only want your packet processed by a full-service igate and ignored by others.
> Jeff
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Txt messaging
> From: Randy Love <rlove31 at gmail.com>
> <soapbox>
> IMHO, one-way igates are a main enabler of the 'APRS is just a vehicle tracking system' mentality.
> It is so much more, but when anyone can slap an RX-only igate up for absolutely NOTHING, and it competes with a full-service igate in the same area and cripples it, you're just hurting the system.
> </soapbox>
> Randy
> WF5X
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig

More information about the aprssig mailing list