<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
The issue was digipeaters that don't beacon to let people know where they are. But that doesn't stop people from using them; if the non-beaconing digpeater still accepts the standard aliases, it will still digipeat a packet it hears using that alias. The ones
in my area even do tracing (inserting their callsign-SSID into the digipeat list) so they may be legally identified. The only way a stealth digipeater could avoid digipeating arbitrary packet stations would be to either use only non-standard aliases (that
non-participating stations wouldn't know to use) or for the stealth digipeater to use a whitelist/blacklist to restrict for which stations it would digipeat.
<div></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I just find it a bit annoying that those digipeater owners don't want to waste the miniscule amount of bandwidth to send a position report beacon once every 30 minutes to let other users figure out their packet paths that were repeated by the digipeater.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Andrew, KA2DDO </div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Doug Younker <dougy@ruraltel.net> <br>
Date:11/24/2014 19:55 (GMT-05:00) <br>
To: TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig@tapr.org> <br>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Stealth digis <br>
<br>
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">I must be particularly dense this evening. In the event you are seeing
<br>
the transmissions, the transmissions aren't very stealthy are they? What <br>
is the nature of the transmissions that makes you feel they are <br>
digipeaters? Not that I'd have any answers, I'm just curious. Doesn't <br>
most digipeater firmware and computer applications require settings that <br>
resemble a legal call sign to function, if they are bogus or genuine?<br>
Doug, N0LKK<br>
On 11/5/2014 10:12 AM, Andrew P. wrote:<br>
> Is there a reason to have stealth (non-beaconing) digipeaters? There <br>
> are some folks in my area who want to hide their digis from the <br>
> general public (supposedly to keep excess traffic off those digis). <br>
> But, if those digis support WIDEn-N aliases, they should still <br>
> digipeat general traffic in their range, and no one will know who is <br>
> doing it (unless those digis add a trace entry of themselves to the <br>
> path).<br>
><br>
> So what would be the point? One digi beacon every 30 minutes wouldn't <br>
> clog the channel. And, unless those digis explicitly didn't support <br>
> standard aliases (WIDEn-N or the obsolete RELAY and WIDE), they would <br>
> still digi general traffic (not just the owner's traffic).<br>
><br>
> Just can't figure out why someone would want a stealth digi.<br>
><br>
> Andrew, KA2DDO<br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aprssig mailing list<br>
aprssig@tapr.org<br>
<a href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>