Scott 

Congratulations on your progress.

Last night, I had a conversation via the GB7NM with G3SMU from GB7MH - totally 
G2 routed on the live G2 network.

I would be interested if you could G2 route from your software to my callsign 
via the G2 network ?  I was last seen on GB7MH, and am there most of the time.

I'm a little confused by your comment about FOUR trust servers - there is only 
ONE trust server outside of Japan, because the system as supplied by Icom does 
not allow for multiple levels of trust. 

The whole point of G2 callsign routing is that EVERY node is accessible to the 
Trust Server.  

The alternative is disconnected pockets of D-Star - that would be very 
confusing to users, where they have a local D-Star repeater on a different 
network, hence unable to reach their contact.

I had experience of this on the Dutch/German border recently - there are a 
series of "linked" D-Star repeaters on their own network, and I was unable to 
reach anyone in the UK on the USRoot Trust Server !  But the only indication 
you get is a RPT? back when you try and call someone that you had previously 
worked on the main G2 network. 

That is certainly not what I want - that is why 99% of my project has been to 
ensure that I have compatibility and interoperability with the de-facto network 
and the trust of those that are kind enough to run it on behalf of the whole 
Amateur community. 

73 David - G4ULF

--- In [email protected], "ham44865" <ham44...@...> wrote:
>
> It was accepted by FOUR(4) ICOM TRUST servers, so far.
> 
> Scott.
> 
> --- In [email protected], "john_ke5c" <ke5c@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "ham44865" <ham44865@> wrote:
> > > dstar_gwy_srv can be used on any DSTAR ICOM system,
> > > Europe,US, Japan,...
> > > 
> > > It is idependent of any "backbone",if there is such a word
> > > backbone when it comes to dstar.
> > > 
> > > I believe you mean dstar TRUST groups, not "backbone".
> > 
> > Is your software accepted by ICOM for use on their (and our) backbone?
> > 
> > But I have to agree with Aro, it wasn't the "first".
> > 
> > 73 -- John
> >
>


Reply via email to