Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Packet routing, path specification.

Jason Winningham jdw at eng.uah.edu
Thu Jun 23 14:25:22 UTC 2005

On Jun 23, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Rick Green wrote:

>   When are the spec writers going to realize that the messaging 
> 'feature' is really an abomination in a broadcast protocol?  The 
> retries, acks, etc. coupled with non-routed, broadcast in all 
> directions, digipeaters, is the 'straw that broke the camel's back' on 
> 144.39.

I'm curious, do you have any numbers to support this?  I'll try to 
check my TNC logs when I get home to see what the local picture is.

Judging from the infrequent number of message packets I see on the 
D700, very little of the traffic is message traffic.  I'd say 80% or 
90% of the message traffic I see is NWS alerts, and I certainly want to 
keep those flowing.

A single message may generate a high number of packets compared to a 
position report, but the messaging feature is very useful, IMO.

I suspect encouraging all these users of brain-dead TNCs that send out  
$GPGGA sentences to switch to a tracker that can produce MIC-E 
sentences would have a _much_ greater impact on bandwidth utilization 
than eliminating messaging.

Let's have a compressed weather packet, too, while we're at it.


More information about the aprssig mailing list