[aprssig] Pete's NSR idea...... proposal... was Packet routing, path spec

K. Mark Caviezel kmcaviezel at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 24 12:01:00 CDT 2005

background:  I'm under the impression that many/most
people using 'abusive paths' are simply novice or
underinformed, and not maliciously junking up the
airwaves.   It sounds like densely trafficed areas
could benefit by use of the NSR scheme.  However, I
can see times (like: a regional emergency) where going
longer paths, all RF may make sense.   How about an
implementation of NSR, where NONSR is an option for
operators who have a need to go all-RF?   Novices
could run WIDE2-2, WIDE3-3, or even (gasp!) WIDE4-4
and have QRM limited by the NSR scheme, and more
informed users could, when there was a real need, use
an all-RF NONSR WIDE3-3 to make a more impactful - yet
in some cases useful - longer RF path. 

Now, if the lids all run NONSR WIDE4-6 then we'll need
to re-think this.   But it seems like NSR as default
in areas where digi operators want to implement it,
with the advanced option of NONSR, we can have the
benefit of putting a lid on QRM from big paths and
also retain the capability for longer, all-RF paths
when the need is there. 

- KMC ng0x (somehow feeling I'll be lambasted by both
Pete and Bob on this.....  :)   ) 

More information about the aprssig mailing list