Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Packet routing, path specification.

Rick Green rtg at aapsc.com
Thu Jun 23 17:53:40 UTC 2005


On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Robert Bruninga wrote:

> The result will be a human-less vehicle
> tracking system only.   Quite useless for
> facilitating ad-hoc human-to-human communicaiton
> (the original intent of APRS)...

  From what I remember of your presentation at a Dayton PacketBash so many 
years ago, the original intent of APRS was that of 'geographical 
situational awareness', a subset of human-to-human communication that was 
facilitated by a broadcast protocol and a 'universal' digi alias.  Its use 
of UI frames and universal digi in all directions is optimized for 
one-to-many communications.  When the user's needs are for one-to-one 
communications, there are lots of other less-crowded frequencies, AX.25 
connected mode (locally) or potentially a future long-distance backbone 
that uses ax.25 for individual links and maybe TCP for end-to-end control?
   My point is that the grafting on of a one-to-one messaging protocol onto 
an inherently one-to-many broadcast protocol is the prime mistake that has 
to be corrected.
   I support the aims of the NSR proposal to limit propagation on 144.39 to 
a manageable level (with the increased granularity offered by my direct 
geographical filter instead of/or in conjunction with the digi 'budlist' 
approach).  I would like to see further development of a separate 
network optimized for one-to-one communication.  The user's client 
software could certainly support both, taking advantage of today's smart, 
frequency-agile radios to switch back and forth as the needs arise.

-- 
Rick Green

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                   -Benjamin Franklin




More information about the aprssig mailing list