I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of the repeater different than the input so it's harder to find the DPL code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it's a lot harder to hack the repeater if you have two different DPL codes for in and out. Most handhelds that you can modify don't do thins and commercial radios can do it with very little programming.
Peter Summerhawk -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Jason, The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. Simple repeaters that encode the same code that they decode are child's play to figure out. The downside to using DPL is that the turnoff code of 134.4 Hz is the same for ALL CDCSS codes, meaning that another user on the same RF frequency who has a different DPL code will mute YOUR frequency as well, when he unkeys. A lot of community repeater operators who thought DPL was a great idea for shared-channel security, learned the hard way! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -----Original Message----- From: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of j Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:08 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
