[App_rpt-users] Discontinuance of IRLP support

[Dale Weber]

On Friday, October 22, 2010 04:41:42 pm Peter Elke wrote:
> Hmm,
> 
> This is very bad news...

	Maybe, and maybe not.  It could end up being good for AllStarLink and 
EchoLink. It's possible that without so many IRLP nodes already in existance, 
that IRLP might be standing alone at some point. It's just starting to hit me 
how scary powerful and flexible AllStarLink is, being built on top of Asterisk.
 
> I would think that connecting a single app_rpt node to IRLP would not
> violate their rules.  There are a number of IRLP node emulators that
> just make sure that echolink in not currently in use before allowing
> IRLP.

	It's the many to many and many to one connection possibility that is the 
cause for concern, and one incident that soured Mr. Cameron on AllStarLink. 
With each AllStarLink node being able to be a hub, that is not something IRLP 
can do now. IRLP uses an out dated interface (parallel port!) afterall. I 
refused to play by heavy handed rules and not have flexibility, which is why I 
am here (AllStarLink #2392/EchoLink #541558) now.

	I think AllStarLink is way under publicized and people just don't realize 
how powerful and flexibile it is.  Of course, like with any tool, that power 
can be weilded for good or evil.

> Their rules disallow interconnections to foreign networks, it should not
> disallow connecting to a app_rpt system used only as a repeater
> controller with a few local radios (during the IRLP session).

	True, but some minds still need to come out of the caves and see the 
light. :D Until then, we do what we do and have more fun doing it. :D

> The IRLP system is a bit too heavy for me, you need a controller, their
> card and a PC.

	For a simplex node, the requirements are no heavier than for AllStarLink. 
Repeaters are another story, of course.

> I recall they even set up a flag for "experimental nodes" in the IRLP
> database.

	Yes, they do, and I rejected that possibility for myself. I want a fully 
functional legit node, which is what I have now, still in two networks. I am 
finding there are not too many places I care to go on IRLP anyways. :)
 
	8-Dale

> -----Original Message-----
> From: app_rpt-users-bounces at qrvc.com
> [mailto:app_rpt-users-bounces at qrvc.com] On Behalf Of Tony Langdon,
> VK3JED
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 4:11 PM
> To: kb8ude at gmail.com; app_rpt mailing list
> Subject: Re: [App_rpt-users] Discontinuance of IRLP support
> 
> At 09:53 AM 10/23/2010, kb8ude at gmail.com wrote:
> >That is unfortunate. It also explains why. requests to him for a
> >node number were ignored. Too many times the needs (wants) of the
> >few (one) get in the way of progress.
> >
> >I got on-board with the app_rpt project because it offered a way to
> >give our users a way to access three different networks cheaply
> >rather than duplicating hardware to achieve the same result.  I
> >won't be constructing a new system to fill the gap, that's for sure.
> 
> Actually, it could be done on an existing IRLP node in theory.  A bit
> of a kludge, but EchoIRLP interfaces thebridge to existing IRLP
> software, and so I'm sure Asterisk could be interfaced to the IRLP
> software in a similar fashion.  Not the nicest way to do things, but
> theoretically possible, and would be IRLP compliant.  The AllStar
> side wouldn't need any hardware, since it would be using the
> radio/interface that IRLP uses.
> 
> EchoIRLP, even though it's a bunch of shell scripts is GPL, so feel
> free to play. :)
> 
> 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
> http://vkradio.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at qrvc.com
> http://qrvc.com/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users
> _______________________________________________
> App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at qrvc.com
> http://qrvc.com/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users

-- 
I can handle complexity.  It's the simple things that confound me.
Open your mind, Read, Learn, Think, Apply. 73, from NPKT!
http://www.hybotics.com - NEW main site
Just because we can, does it follow that we should?