[Xastir] IGating

[Steve Friis]

James Ewen wrote:
> On 8/24/07, Steve Friis <wm5z at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Way cool. Since the RF pollution is so high here, I am trying to lower
>> it some to that low power stations can be heard, or at least stand a
>> chance.
>>     
>
> Steve,
>
> Another incorrect supposition. Adding i-gating to your station will
> not lower the amount of noise on the RF network directly.
>
>   
>> As it has been, there was not much chance for the low power
>> stations in this area getting heard. My hope is that once heard and
>> gated here, then the need to repeatedly be digipeated will be lowered.
>>     
>
> By running an i-gate you will be able to help those low powered
> stations located close to you to get to the APRS-IS internet stream.
> You will not help lower the amount of traffic on RF though.
>   
The hope is that the El Paso, Local an URFMS digi's will lower the hops 
they retransmit.
> The amount of traffic on the local RF network is a product of the
> number of stations in your area, the frequency of the beacons from
> those stations, the path used by those stations, and finally the RF
> digipeater network in your area.
>
> It sounds like you have made the supposition that once a packet from
> the RF network gets i-gated, that the packet stops on the RF network.
> The RF network has no way of knowing anything about the internet. If
> your local RF network has too many overlapping digipeaters that don't
> support the new n-N paradigm, used by local users that use old
> RELAY,WIDE paths, who beacon too often and with their power set too
> high, then the low powered guys don't stand a chance.
>
>   
See my comment above. I was not thinking that supposition, but the way I 
worded my first comment I can see how you would think that is what I meant.
> You can fix any or nearly all of the above, which will make things a
> little better for the low powered trackers, but the best thing to do
> is to try and fix all of it. Of course that's easier said than done.
>
> Adding more i-gates does not hurt the network, especially if you don't
> send anything from your station to the rf network. Having redundant
> i-gates in an area helps with the reliability of stations getting to
> the APRS-IS. This can possibly help reduce the RF overload IF people
> see that using a shorter path still gets them heard on the APRS-IS,
> and that is their ultimate goal. If those stations use a shorter path,
> or lower power, then the RF load gets reduced as a side effect.
>
>   
Right now, as far as I know, I am the only station IGate equipped in Las 
Cruces. I think that is why El Paso set their digi's for so many hops.
> You are in a very well developed area, and most likely you have
> digipeaters located on mountain tops that can hear very large areas,
> as well as users using long paths. This all adds up to too many
> stations being heard on a limited RF channel.
>
>   
This is true. There is a digi on Mt. Franklin which is in El Paso. The 
Upper Rio Grand FM Society has many interconnected digi-peaters in the 
area, but because of location, can not directly IGate. This is because 
of the remoteness of the mountain tops, and the expense of trying to run 
a dedicated phone line to run the internet. These digi's do a fantastic 
job at what they are supposed to do, which is to repeat, so they can be 
heard by an IGate.
> Keep your station acting as an i-gate, but keep your outgoing path
> short, and beacon frequency low so you don't add to the RF congestion.
>
> James
> VE6SRV
>   
Thank you very very much for your guidance. I always appreciate a good 
elmer.

Steve/WM5Z