<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
      <br>
      Changing the port to which received packets are delivered has
      absolutely no effect on "fixing" anything.<br>
      <br>
      Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and
      Win32<br>
      <br>
      On 11/19/2016 10:09 PM, Jim Alles wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CABS3LnLXbM_FVjteKwHrF7Uu7g=2y2=JOgHoZcyuk2525uuH=w@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">Please,
          follow the logic of this argument to the end.</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">"If
            the only Igate in an area is RX only, that definitely breaks
            the system."</span><br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">I
          am picking on this statement, not the person who made it,
          because it has been echoed so many times.</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">And
          it is wrong. </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">Every
          variation, it is the wrong battle.</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">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). </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">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 ;-).</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">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.</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">(1)
          It was actually Mr. Finnegan who just made me aware that such
          a port existed, on another forum. My gratitude to you,
          Kenneth!</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">73,</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">Jim
          (you can call me grandpa) Alles</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:57 PM,
          Kenneth Finnegan <span dir="ltr"><<a
              moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:kennethfinnegan2007@gmail.com"
              target="_blank">kennethfinnegan2007@gmail.com</a>></span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="ltr">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.<br>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>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.</div>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
              <div>
                <div class="m_-4249308924887237804gmail_signature"
                  data-smartmail="gmail_signature">--<br>
                  Kenneth Finnegan<br>
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/"
                    target="_blank">http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.<wbr>com/</a></div>
              </div>
              <div>
                <div class="h5">
                  <br>
                  <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:32
                    PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:steve@dimse.com" target="_blank">steve@dimse.com</a>></span>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
                        > On Nov 19, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Randy Love
                        <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:rlove31@gmail.com"
                          target="_blank">rlove31@gmail.com</a>>
                        wrote:<br>
                        ><br>
                        > 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.<br>
                        ><br>
                      </span>This is the perfect example of why having a
                      central authority is not workable.<br>
                      <br>
                      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.<br>
                      <br>
                      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.<br>
                      <br>
                      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.<br>
                      <div class="m_-4249308924887237804HOEnZb">
                        <div class="m_-4249308924887237804h5"><br>
                          Steve K4HG<br>
                          ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
                          aprssig mailing list<br>
                          <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org"
                            target="_blank">aprssig@tapr.org</a><br>
                          <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig"
                            rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/li<wbr>stinfo/aprssig</a><br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br>
            ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
            aprssig mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org">aprssig@tapr.org</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/aprssig</a><br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org">aprssig@tapr.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>