I'm going to try to flesh this out. Consider the following IDs 21000 C-Bridge Master With talk groups, 1,2,3 12345 DMRlink Peer 54321 DMRlink Master 56789 Mototrbo repeater peer 98765 Mototrbo repeater peer 12345 is pointed at 21000 12345 bridges with 54321 Talk Groups 1 and 2 are bridged. 56789 is pointed at 54321 98765 is pointed at 54321 See the rules below: RULES = { '12345': { 'TRUNK': False, 'GROUP_HANGTIME': 5, 'GROUP_VOICE': [ {'SRC_GROUP': 1, 'SRC_TS': 1, 'DST_NET': '54321', 'DST_GROUP': 1, 'DST_TS': 1}, {'SRC_GROUP': 2, 'SRC_TS': 1, 'DST_NET': '54321', 'DST_GROUP': 2, 'DST_TS': 1}, ], 'PRIVATE_VOICE': [ ] }, '54321': { 'TRUNK': False, 'GROUP_HANGTIME': 5, 'GROUP_VOICE': [ {'SRC_GROUP': 1, 'SRC_TS': 1, 'DST_NET': '12345', 'DST_GROUP': 1, 'DST_TS': 1}, {'SRC_GROUP': 2, 'SRC_TS': 1, 'DST_NET': '12345', 'DST_GROUP': 2, 'DST_TS': 1}, ], 'PRIVATE_VOICE': [ ] } } Example 1: Traffic is "transmitted" by 21000 on TG1 That traffic is "received" on 12345 That traffic is bridged to 54321 because a bridge is defined for TG1 56789 "receives" the traffic on TG1 98765 "receives" the traffic on TG1 Subscriber radios on 56789 receive the traffic on TG1 Subscriber radios on 98765 receive the traffic on TG1 Everybody is happy Example 2: Traffic is "transmitted" by 21000 on TG3 That traffic is "received" on 12345 That traffic is NOT bridged to 54321 because there is no bridge defined for TG3 56789 does NOT "receive" the traffic 98765 does NOT "receive" the traffic Subscriber radios on 56789 do NOT receive the traffic Subscriber radios on 98765 do NOT receive the traffic Everybody is clueless, they hear nothing. Example 3: Subscriber radio transmits to repeater 56789 on TG4 That traffic is "received" on 54321 That traffic is NOT bridged to 54321 because there is no bridge is defined for TG4 98765 "receives" the traffic because 98765 and 56789 are peers on the same network Subscriber radios on 98765 receive the traffic Everybody is happy, The QSO is local and does not leave the local area. -- "Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about." 1st Law of Logic
participants (1)
-
Steve Zingman