[aprssig] More digis are changing to the new paradigm

[Brian Webster]

Comments in line.


-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Needham [mailto:needhame1 at plateautel.net]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 10:57 PM
To: aprssig at lists.tapr.org
Subject: RE: [aprssig] More digis are changing to the new paradigm


At 08:32 PM 7/4/2005, Brian Webster wrote:
>Earl,
>         I don't normally post on this topic but feel compelled to do so.
> At the
>risk of offending you and your area aprs congestion, if people around you
>were to use more extensive paths than wide2-2, and they are truly that far
>away from you that means they are either on the West Coast (where there is
a
>congestion problem)

         I guess I'm a little confused -- are you saying the West Coast can
be reached from here on 2 hops?

>>> No I am saying that more than 2 hops will start to effect those areas.
There have been many folks commenting on your post that they see NM traffic
well outside the state.

>  or farther East say Denver area or Texas areas. If they
>were to hop out more than two hops it goes in every direction not just to
>the non-congested areas of New Mexico (and yes I have traveled there and
>know how isolated you are).

         I don't think you do.  Take a look at the two links I posted
earlier and then tell me that 2 hops will let me see the whole state and
out to the West Coast.

>>> I understand the fact that YOU are isolated and YOU have very little
traffic in your immediate area. I don't think anyone disputes that fact. The
problem is that the people/users you want to see must generate a packet with
enough hops so you can see it. The problem with this is the person who
generates the packet sends it out in concentric circles so to speak in ALL
directions, not just to remote NM and this traffic in the undesired
direction has been the problem we all have been working to eliminate. These
same users that initially generate this traffic are undoubtedly in an RF
environment where there is some congestion and therefore cause problems to
everyone else just to get the packet to an isolated area. Like I said before
and you have also stated today, if you can get them to route their packets
via specific digi's then that might work. It certainly won't send excess
packets in the opposite direction.

><snip>
>         Earl I respect you and your contributions to this list but I just
> have to
>disagree with you on this one. If you really need to see more action,
>connect to the net.

         Actually, I like to do RADIO, and augmenting a broken radio system
with the internet just isn't what I'm looking for.

>>> Understood and I can certainly respect the purity of radio only, but
look at the reality. If you have no users in your area then your map will be
blank. If you want to use just radio but see users from a long way off, I
suggest you look in to NOSAPRS, I think there are provisions where you can
route APRS traffic over regular packet channels thus eliminating the
problems with long haul unconnected packet. You might be able to find a
network that you can connect via packet that has an APRS port on 144.390 in
areas where there is APRS activity and allow you to wormhole in to the APRS
network and still remain radio only.

>  You simply can't put all this traffic in a 1200 baud
>network with no real routing and expect it to go far.

         All WHAT traffic?  LOOK AT THE LINKS I POSTED.  New Mexico does
not have the amount of traffic you see in New York.

>>> We all know you have no traffic in your area, but MORE than 2 hops away
from you there are areas that have traffic.


>>> Brian, N2KGC