Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] RE: NetNodes, the future

dick at kb7zva.com dick at kb7zva.com
Wed Dec 29 18:01:05 UTC 2004


>>>> HamLists at ametx.com 12/29/04 7:08:54 AM >>>
>>APRS has prospered... Because I do not have to configure 
>>(one configuration works almost universally (RELAY,WIDE...)
>>By simply addressing a message to the remote station (no path 
>>settings required).  

>Agree completely but ONLY for 1 hop or so on a non-congested
>channel.  Message exchange is a POINT-to-POINT process that
>requires acknowledgment and other than occassional one-liners is
>just grossly inefficient on an APRS system.
>
>HAM communications needs a good point-to-point system for
>file and paragraph transfer,  It is *impossible* to do this on APRS
>and APRS was not designed to do this.  Thus we need 
>CONNECTED mode connectivity on another channel to augment
>APRS.
>
>Thus, why not a universal global NETgate system based
>on the very viable and transparent NetROM/TheNET system?
>Seems a slam-dunk to me...

That hit my funny-bone and I have several observations.
APRS doesn't need a paragraph to convey critical data.

I keep hearing that APRS isn't the best messaging transport system.
APRS was designed to do a lot with a one-liner! That is the primary
reason I dropped my interest in 'connected' node hopping,
like so many others. 

I see no relationship between the modes (connected and
unconnected). Each has a benefit, and now we are using
the APRS platform to revive the dead and dying.
Where is the slam-dunk Bob?

Just like the messages we see here on the list. Paragraphs
of information... do it, don't do it, think about it, try this,
no that didn't work, new idea. Punt!

Look at our short one-liners and the information conveyed. I
personally don't see how connected packets and paragraphs of
rag-chewing can be a benefit to APRS. Maybe I feel a little
guilty that I gave up my PBBS and NOS operations. Your
observation is one of compassion... not practical. 

Sorry, no matter what we call it or what we try to do with it,
conventional connected packets won't add to the flexibility
of reporting station positions or messaging on APRS.

With Net/ROM and NETgate, users cannot issue a connect to a
distant station without knowing the path. The longer the path,
the less effective it becomes. From my experience, not many
stations could use a node at the same time. The waiting to
get somwhere took a lot of patience. You could put on a pot
coffee waiting for a connect.

The reason the APRS-IS works so well is because of those
one-liners!

Those paragraphs of information always followed a pattern.
Commonly, users would post messages and go back and read them
to make sure they took. Then when those users decided to read
general posts and the swap items that were listed, the channel
would be saturated until they disconnected. A single connect
could dominate a single frequency almost forever. Established
nodes could not promise reliability during events,
mainly because it isn't even close to what APRS offers as a
real-time keyboard to keyboard mode.  

I'm glad that APRS isn't a point to point connected mode <g>.
And, I see no relationship between the 2. Even if we augment
APRS on an existing net/ROM network, I don't think we'll be
helping anyone. Certainly not the conventional packet old
timers that are hanging around. We are world's apart.

In one breath we are saying clean up our mess, and in another
we are saying add to it. Just my 2 cents worth... we are
heading to disaster with too many irons in the fire. It's to
the point that the APRS mobile traveler has no idea which
configuration or path will work for his needs.

The bottom-line is that our creativity is alienating APRS
users with what Pete said, 'decisions, decisions, decisions...' 

Dick KB7ZVA
APRSWest Tier 2
http://aprswest.com
      

      

 




More information about the aprssig mailing list