[aprssig] New n-N success in North Carolina

[A.J. Farmer (AJ3U)]

Something like this idea of a kiss mode controller on a PIC chip might be
what is needed to push us over these hurdles.  By trying to "fit" to the
current KPC3 firmware, it sometimes seems like the square peg in the round
hole.  Is the root of this problem really lack of flexibility of the current
hardware?

It makes open source digi/TNC firmware that can be constantly evolved by the
APRS community very attractive...

Even Digi_ned on a solid state computer like a Soekeris board starts to
sound good...

Just thinking out loud. ;-)

73!

A.J. Farmer, AJ3U
http://www.aj3u.com


-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]
On Behalf Of Wes Johnston
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:22 PM
To: TAPR APRS Mailing List; Eric H. Christensen
Cc: 'TAPR APRS Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [aprssig] New n-N success in North Carolina

The problem with the "trap out" method is that even if you trap W7-7,W6-6,
and
W5-5, you still let the W7-6's and W7-2's thru....

There is another way and that is to support the alias of
WIDE2-2,W2-1,W3-3,W3-2
under the UIDIGI setting.  It'll give ONE more hope to each elligible
packet.

Eric, I agree with you...  SSn-n is the way to go.  Ok, fine, we can support
ONE
hop and one hop only for W2-2 people by putting W2-2 in the UIDIGI setting.

Ideally, I'd really like to see is a hop count limit.  If this existed, it
would
be fine for a fellow to run W7-7.  When he wandered in to an area where 2
hops,
his packets would be digipeated until they got to WIDE7-5.  Now imagine a
guy
approaching a metro area.  Some of his packets would go toward the metro
area,
other packets would head off in the rural direction.  Those packets going
into
the metro area's 1 or 2 hop limit digi's would not be digi'ed once those
packets were decremented to W7-5.  Meanwhile the copies of packets going
toward
the rural area's 5 hop limit digi's would continue to be digipeated until
they
got to W7-2.  They could feasible route around the city! What I'm getting at
is
that each area could filter the same packets to varying degrees...  wow..
what a
shame a hop limit wasn't spec'ed when the UIFLOOD was first written.

I kinda get a chuckle out of this next suggestion.  If I (or someone) was to
produce a KISS mode controller based on a PIC chip, it would probably cost
$35
(around the price of a tiny trak).  This device could be added on to the
back
of a kpc3 tnc in kiss mode and powered from pin 13 or pin25 of the serial
port.
 The part I chuckle about is that kantronics wants $60 for firmware, but it
would be a neater solution.

Wes
--



Quoting "Eric H. Christensen" <kf4otn at earthlink.net>:
> > 1) SSn-N is still a perfect way to go for most local ops
> >     it remains a great feture of the New n-N Paradigm
>
> Absolutely!
>
>
> > 3) We found a simpler way to TRAP large N hops without
> >     haivng to drop WIDEn-N completely
>
> This will not work.  Yes, you can trap SOME of the WIDEn-N packets
> but that won't stop 4-4, etc.  PLUS, in NC we are putting additional
> LANs up to support gating of weather bullitens and objects so they
> don't go outside of the area. (We have someone on the Western part of
> Virginia or NC that is sending out bulletins to a very WIDE area.)
> So we don't have room to trap all these bad n-N packets.  By doing
> away with WIDEn-N, we have freed up our network from a lot of packets
> that used to come in from all over.  John's assessment is accurate.
>
>
> >
> > 4) LNKn-N will never work since it simply takes too much
> >     coordination and wont be of any value unless all links
> >     in the chain are good.    It has been abandoned
>
> I disagree.  As you coordinate the SSn-N you coordinate the LNKn-N.
> We ALREADY have THREE digipeaters up on the 95LNKn-N and that was
> within a month.  Not a lot of work there...
>
>
> >
> > What you have done is a great positive step.  But please
> > re-visit the New n-N Paradigm site and prepare for one more
> > round of changes.  Basically, send out a bulletin reminding
> > everyone how much better SSn-N (or Wn-N) is than W,W or R,W.
> > Then you can turn back on the WIDEn-N but with the filters on
> > 55,66,77 or what ever limit you want...
>
> I think the next best thing is to eliminate the WIDE and TRACE.
>
>
> >
> > >This has been the best thing that has happened to APRS
> > >to date. I hope we don't back track to our older ways.
> >
> > ANd thanks for trying it.  And dont be upset with this
> > latest change.  We have learned a lot from the user
> > feedback and it will make it even better...
>
> I disagree.  Even letting WIDE4-4 through would bring in many packets
> from hundreds of miles around and then we are back at square one.
>
> Eric KF4OTN
>
>
> >
> > de WB4APR, Bob
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>


_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig