[aprssig] Packet routing, path specification.

[Robert Bruninga]

>>> Wes Johnston <aprs at kd4rdb.com> 06/23/05 3:34 PM >>>
>...the APRS... network has devolved into a 
>system that is open for abuse either willfully
>(WIDE7-7,RELAY),  absent mindedly (WIDE5-5)
>or those who... just set and forget their path.  

Ah, but that was 3 months ago.  With the New-N paradigm
all of those problems are a long way towards being
eliminated.  When I really started hammering the New-N
Paradigm, of the 300 stations I can see easily here
in Baltimore, there were 5 or more using WIDE6-6
or greater,  10 ore more using 5-5, 20 or more
using 4-4, and 45% were using RELAY and WIDE.
The network was a mess.  We all agree.

Now of the same 300 there is no-one above 3-3
(well, maybe one per day wanders in)...  and
almost 70% are using WIDEn-N.  THe network is
working much better and the abuse is way way
down to almost non-existant.  If we can just
get rid of the few remaining RELAYS and WIDES,
we are pretty much working quite well.

So be careful what you are trying to fix.

Bob, WB4APR

>>>>wa7nwp at jnos.org 06/23/05 12:10 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Would it be possible to do both?   Client 
>>stations could choose either an outgoing 
>>NSR path (an anti-path) or a legacy path as needed?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I think the two can co-exist.  Just name 
>the PATH as "NSR" and that then gives your packet
>over to the NSR system and it will route it
>according to the NSR's sysop's design. 
>
>Of course this waters down its potential, because its 
>biggest advantage was to be able to prevent users 
>from abusing their freedome to choose their own path.
>
>But I would have no problems with it at all under
>these general rules:
>
>1) A user can send a WIDE2-2 anywhere and
>    WILL get 1 or 2 hops out of it guarnateed. 
>    ( THe  APRS default path)...
>
>2) A user can send ANY length D1,D2,D3 directed
>    path (since even a full 7 hop path is less total
>    copies on the network than a single W2-2) and
>   is an inconsequential load on the system, but
>   permits the users the flexibility to handle
>   unusual needs.
>
>Any other path will be at the mercy of the NSR
>sysop.  Or just select the path of "NSR" for
>full NSR routing.
>
>Bob
>  
>
>>>>wa7nwp at jnos.org 06/23/05 12:10 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>to effectively implement the NSR algorithm.
>>>      
>>>
>>...
>>
>>I fully suport the APRS-IS, and global messaging
>>via the internet, but it being able to use a reasonable
>>RF path as needed where needed is the essence of
>>HAM radio in my mind.  There is a big difference between
>>the distribution needs of APRS 24/7 home stations just 
>>doing nothing all day versus a real-live-HAM radio
>>activity with humans at both ends...
>>    
>>
>
>Would it be possible to do both?   Client stations
>could choose either an outgoing NSR path (an anti-path)
>or a legacy path as needed?
>
>Bill - WA7NWP
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 
>  
>