<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Taking the discussion back to the
public list so others don't ask the same questions later...<br>
<br>
On 11/19/2016 10:42 PM, Jim Alles wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABS3Ln+azQsMQDXP6G_eJVWO_eAJf4hD=p8PRaR3dmVkbksa9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">"Changing
the port to which received packets are delivered has
absolutely no effect on "fixing" anything."</span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">I
believe you are wrong - the packets inserted into the
unidirectional port are not inserted into the heard hash
table.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">The
APRS-IS is smart enough to not try to send messages back to
you to transmit them - you aren't there.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But I don't understand just what you think that "fixes"?<br>
<br>
Remote operators are still showing up on the APRS-IS and there's
still no indication that they came through a non-transmitting IGate.<br>
<br>
Not being in the heard table doesn't do anything as far as I can
tell, except prevent your UDP-injecting IGate from receiving
messages that it wouldn't likely have done anything with anyway?<br>
<br>
Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABS3Ln+azQsMQDXP6G_eJVWO_eAJf4hD=p8PRaR3dmVkbksa9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">?</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Lynn
W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ldeffenb@homeside.to"
target="_blank">ldeffenb@homeside.to</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="m_4026867541132415187moz-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
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 11/19/2016 10:09 PM, Jim Alles wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote 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-<wbr>messaging-because-it-was-<wbr>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><wbr>></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_4026867541132415187m_-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.c<wbr>om/</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_4026867541132415187h5"> <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_4026867541132415187m_-4249308924887237804HOEnZb">
<div
class="m_4026867541132415187m_-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"
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>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_4026867541132415187mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
aprssig mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_4026867541132415187moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org" target="_blank">aprssig@tapr.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_4026867541132415187moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig" target="_blank">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/aprssig</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote><p>
</p></body></html>