Fwd: Re: [aprssig] Packet routing, path specification.

[Robert Bruninga]

>>> HamLists at ametx.com 06/24/05 7:59 AM >>>
>Why is it so important to allow everyone the ability 
>to break the network just because you want to 
>see how far your packets can go?  

You are not correctly interpreting what I am saying.

1) I never want to see how "far I can go".

2) All of my examples and usages are to get my
    packets to where they*need* to go, not
    as *far* as they can go.

3) I have clearly demosntrated how there is nothing
    wrong with me using a 3 hop directed  path of 
    say DIGI1, DIGI2, DIGI3 to commuicate with
    someone I *need* to communicate with on APRS
    3 hops away in an area where 2 hops is considere
    a maximum, because a 2 hop WIDE2-2 will generate
    from 4 to 8 copies on the network where as the
    directed 3 hop path only generates half to a 3rd
    the load on the same network

4) Using *my* chosen path to accomplish *my*
    immediate communications need, at a reduced*
    load on the network in my mind does not 
    constitute "breaking the network"...

5) And the New-N Paradigm being implemented
    for the first time does add network protection
    to the network from abuse of large values of
    N.  Thus there is no longer the potential for
    abuse as there was before by people simply
    not understanding what they were doing.
    Under New-N each digi traps large N's.

>Seems rather egotistical to me, Bob.  And very 
>inconsiderate of the other hams in your area.

I dont see how you can claim, my *fewer*
packets on the system in any way is inconsiderate.
I would say the opposite.  Letting my match my
path to the need of the individual packet is 100%
in keeping with the general rules of the Amateur
Radio service.  That is "use the minimum power
(path) necessary to do the job".

Your NSR routing enforces one-rule fits all and
will flood the local area with every packet no
matter how important or how trivial or to whom
it is directed.  While preventing any flexibility of
the sender in responding to changing circumstances
or needs, and is 100% dependent on the internet
or other off-channel assets to communicate across
pre-defined boundaries.

>You seem to think that "we have fixed 70% of the
> problems with the new paradigm".  That is not true 
>and cannot be substantiated.  

It most certainly can.  ANyone running APRS dos
for example at the press of one key (the ANALYZE
command) can instantly see the progress.  And
anyone can run my APRStest.exe and compare 
today's results with what we had 6 months ago.

Back then something like 80% of all packets around
here were dupes being generated by users of RELAY 
and WIDE and abusers of WIDE5-5 and above.  
Today, those numbers are way down.  These are
absolute un arguable on-air statistics.  I dont see 
how you can call that "unsubstantiated..."

>What you have done is put a bandaid on hemorrhage,
>...will continue to get worse ...as_ people figure out 
>how easy it is to get around [the limits].

My experience is that Hams will follow the rules as long
as the rules are well spelled out.  Sure they can 
intentionally break the rules and abuse the system.
But I dont think they will.  In the past, there were so
many confusing and conflicting rules it was impossible
to expect the users to adhere to what is best for the
network.  Under the New-N, everyone is learning that
what is best for the network *is best for them too*.

>we have people here using WIDE4-6 to get around 
>local implementations and they are causing a _lot_ of 
>QRM because they are trying to message with those paths).

That is easy to fix.  
1) educate them about the damage that path causes
2) suggest a better DIGI1,DIGI2,DIGI3 path
3) Trap 4-6 at their point of entry
4) Budlist them

That is the advantage of the New-N paradigm, is
that the sysop now has the tools to address those
few problem cases.

>Unfortunately, Bob, NSR is an all or nothing 
>proposition (the end goal is to eliminate source-routing
>100%). 

Which removes the option for the sender to get
any specific packet where *he* knows it needs to go
if they are different than what the surrounding
SYSOPS allow.  Or conversly, any event or special
need will have to be coordinated through all the 
sysops and all the digis parameters changed on a
case-by-case basis to do anything out of the
ordinary.   This is just not my idea of supporiting
the inherrent flexibility of the APRS system to respond
instantly to emergent needs in the field.

I suggest that maybe NSR might do very well
as a HAM radio substitute for the internet but
in that application, it should probably be on 
a different frequency.  Maybe 145.01 could
be improved by going to NSR.  The link-by
link source routing of the old NETROM and
THENET roms are CLEARLY a case of Source
Routing that is long overdue for upgrade to
NSR.

Bob