Nate,
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 _____ From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 12:00 AM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ? On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Fran wrote: > > Our repeater is always linked to a reflector and we want people to > be able to call route to us, so it is NOT a good solution. > > > > Fran > Nothing about my solution would stop that. It would simply stop your Gateway from routing THEM to the Reflector. You appear to not understand what I'm saying. They can call route to your Repeater/Gateway JUST FINE. Your Gateway/ Repeater should NOT route them back into the Reflector. Your local users can then callsign route back to them and NOT be heard on the Reflector, too. WITHOUT having to disconnect from the Reflector. Re-read the solution again. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. <mailto:nate%40natetech.com> com
