[WARC] APRS digipeater vs. IGate

[Clare Jarvis]

Yes Jon,


I would digipeat the RF signals.



Clare



On Saturday 30 January 2010 12:06:57 am jonmcpete at cpinternet.com wrote:
> Thanks for the info!
> Last thing:  So when you IGate  to the internet those
> signals received by RF do you also still repeat what is
> received by RF back out again on RF as a digipeater does for
> the benefit of mobiles and of stationary users not internet
> equipped?  I would think so as long as the last digit "n"of
> any such RF-repeated messages can be made to be 1 no matter
> what the last digit was on the received message.  Maybe that
> can't be done and one just has to live with the potential
> for duplication of messages?
> Jon
> 
> > Jon,
> >
> >
> > At the Winona Igate  done at my business we are igating to
> > the internet but not pulling from the internet to RF.
> > Jon,   if you set yours up in the same manner I do not
> > think there would be a problem and it would cover a dead
> > spot above wabasha for aprs tracking.
> >
> > internet-->rf is another problem and requires a great deal
> > of care and planning.   if you do that then I would only
> > turn it on while you can monitor until you know that you
> > have got it set up correctly.
> >
> > Many just forward to rf message to or from a local list.
> >
> > One thing that cannot be done is forwarding every internet
> > packet to rf as there are 100s of thousands per day.
> >
> >
> > I hope my opinion helps.
> >
> > There may be more than one igate in Winona,
> >
> > 73 Clare
> > de K0NY
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday 29 January 2010 08:04:18
> >
> > > jonmcpete at cpinternet.com wrote: We have been planning
> > > for a while to put an APRS digipeater on our tower at
> > > Wabasha.  Russ, N0QK, has been involved with the idea.
> > > A question came up this week that I had no clue about:
> > > As internet access is available 200' from the tower (our
> > > house), should we make it an IGate?  When is it a
> > > "problem" having too many connections to the internet
> >
> > too close together such as Rochester AND Winona AND
> >
> > > Wabasha etc.?  Offhand I couldn't think of why that
> > > would be bad. If internet access was lost in a disaster,
> > > you would want it to revert back to a repeat mode but
> > > maybe IGates repeat anyway in addition to feeding info
> > > to the internet??  It seems to me that if IGates also
> > > normally repeat it would just add to the "clutter" of
> > > signals.  Can anybody educate me?
> > > Jon WA0UNB
> > >
> > > Jon Peterson wa0unb
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WARC mailing list
> > > WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> > > http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc
> 
> Jon Peterson wa0unb
> _______________________________________________
> WARC mailing list
> WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc
>