I understand what you are saying. My problem is that what is being
proposed creates a situation where a conversation would be taking place
on one linked repeater; no one would hear it and then a second
conversation could be started on another linked repeater and disrupt the
first.
Believe me; I am not trying to be argumentative. I think this whole need
for a solution has come about because people think call routing creates
one-sided conversations on a reflector and it doesn’t.
Fran
Very good point Fran, really the onus is on the operator to unlink
before undertaking a routed session. Thats probably the reason Robin did
not adopt the idea and implement it.
Another idea may be perhaps an automatic unlink by dplus when it detects
a non cqcqcq call
within the gateway. Unlinking will be the only solution to stop incoming
dplus streams during a routed qso as you described.
I have heard reflector sessions where a Japanese station routed in, and
every one got excited working out the return routed call (helping each
other)and a good qso session was had by all.
I think reflector nets are one area where the incoming routed call would
be disruptive, and most good ops only call a couple of times if there is
no reply.
I like you, have no issue with the current routing/dplus format.
vk4tux
------------------------------------
Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original
message in reply unless needed for clarity. ThanksYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
