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. 
Until then, we do what we do and have more fun doing it.
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
···
On Friday, October 22, 2010 04:41:42 pm Peter Elke wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: app_rpt-users-bounces@qrvc.com
[mailto:app_rpt-users-bounces@qrvc.com] On Behalf Of Tony Langdon,
VK3JED
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 4:11 PM
To: kb8ude@gmail.com; app_rpt mailing list
Subject: Re: [App_rpt-users] Discontinuance of IRLP support
At 09:53 AM 10/23/2010, kb8ude@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@qrvc.com
http://qrvc.com/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users
_______________________________________________
App_rpt-users mailing list
App_rpt-users@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?