Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread Nate Duehr
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, John Hays j...@hays.org said: Here is my thought on this. Radios should be identified by their official callsign (and optional designator character), tactical / special event callsigns can be put into the 4 char comment, on voice, or in the message

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread Nate Duehr
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:31:17 -, john_ke5c k...@hot.rr.com said: I don't like the idea of filtering bogus callsigns. What might be bogus to you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns. (There's nothing stopping anyone from registering SAG1, SAG1, NET, EVENT, etc.) I don't

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread Nate Duehr
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:33:22 -0700, John Hays j...@hays.org said: I don't the reason for it, but I suspect that it was to support DD callsign to IP mapping and was just carried over to DV. Which is silly anyway, since the DD format is Ethernet encapsulation, not IP encapsulation.

880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread k7ve
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr n...@... wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, John Hays j...@... said: Here is my thought on this. Radios should be identified by their official callsign (and optional designator character), tactical / special event callsigns

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread Barry A. Wilson
John, I like your idea of using the four digit call sign note for tactical calls during operations. It makes perfect use of the stations call sign while providing a tactical or special event ID. That would work very well on events when you want to ID Resources as well as who the operators

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread Woodrick, Ed
Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead. Problem solved. Ed WA4YIH From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:29 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was:

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread Woodrick, Ed
Agreed, callsigns should be the real callsign. Even in AX.25 packet, the callsign was the callsign. An alias field was added to support tactical calls. If you use MYEOC as a tactical call, then unless it is registered, it can't source route or link repeaters. And from an EOC, that's something

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-15 Thread John Hays
They each have their purpose, we just need better gateway software. -- John D. Hays 206-801-0820 Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2009, at 20:28, Woodrick, Ed ewoodr...@ed-com.com wrote: Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead. Problem solved. Ed WA4YIH