Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] New n-N success in North Carolina

Jason Winningham jdw at eng.uah.edu
Sat Feb 12 19:40:51 UTC 2005

On Feb 12, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Wes Johnston wrote:

> I kindly disagree with this.... In this example you take my packet and 
> alter it
> at the point of entry into the network.  From there, every digi that 
> hears my
> packet would then digipeat it that max_allowed_hops.

Not quite;   I alter your packet by decrementing the hopcount at least 
one.  If you're asking for more hops than the I think appropriate for 
the area served by my router, I'll decrement by more than one.

> THis is the same a 2nd
> hand source routing.... let's call it proxy source routing.

No, this is exactly identical to the IP TTL field.  I called it hop 
count because that's what it is; TTL is a misnomer on the part of IP, 
because time has nothing to do with it. (Yeah, I know it takes time to 
transmit that many hops, but that's incidental.)

> Catching the maxhops would be the responsibilty of the first digi in 
> the chain.

No, the first router (digi) in the chain would have the first shot at 
it.  Every router would have the option of applying it's own 
max_hop_count, so a distant rural router could chop an 8 to a 5, let 
the packet hop once to a city, then a big city router could reduce it 
from 4 to 2.

> Like Bob's "trap out" method it would put me (as a digi owner) in a 
> position of
> depending on other digi owners to control what my digi is subjected 
> to.  I
> strongly feel that each digi should be responsible to determine it's 
> own
> limits.

No, I'm putting the power to do determine what the router (digi) will 
handle _exclusively_ in the digi operator's hands, instead of the hands 
of the client operator.

> I think a better model would be to allow *each* digi along the way to 
> decide
> what was the max that *it* would digipeat.  It would either digi the 
> packet or
> not, but would not alter it for the sake of other digipeaters.

This is more or less what we've got now, with the aliasing of W7-7 and 
W6-6 to effectively drop them, if I understand Bob's plan correctly.  
What I'm talking about is accepting that RELAY,WIDE7-7, tag the 
digipeated bit on RELAY and rewriting the WIDE7-7 as WIDE7-2 (assuming 
my router's max_hop_count is 3).

> if y > x then
> 	y=x    ' trap the lids who would like to run wide3-7 or wide7-15
> end if

If I follow your example correctly, we're saying the exact same thing.  
I simply left out the WIDEn-n terminology in favor of hop count a) 
because it's simpler, b) it is the terms we should be thinking in, and 
c) it's the concept we should be shifting toward.


More information about the aprssig mailing list