[aprssig] LINKn-N's no, but LINK,LINK,LINK maybe

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Sat Mar 5 21:59:52 CST 2005

We CAN have it all! 

As you know,  I had abandoned the LINKn-N system as 
being unachievalbe and also completely unneceassay after we
found out how to use the KPC-3's for trapping large N's.
And with WIDEn-N and SSn-N taking up the two n-N
capabiities in the TNC's, the LINKn-N system had to go...

But the one LINK system I did want in our east coast area
was the COASTn-N system for the intercoastal waterway
boaters who do their twice annual trip up and down the 
coast.  I just realized that the same advantage of such a
linear system in eliminating all dupes and flooding applies
whether it is a LINKn-N system or a LINK,LINK,LINK
system.  This is because as a linear string, there is
less opportunity for dupes...

Thus, although we cannot have a COASTn-N system, we
can still have the digis along the waterway support an
additional UIDIGI alias of COAST.  Then boaters can use
the COAST,COAST,COAST path (or maybe better to be
ICW,ICW,ICW for keeping up with the other boaters north 
and south of them without QRMING the rest of the states!

Again, this only works well in a linear chain.  Dont use it
in anything other than a linear chain, since it will generate
all the dupes that we are trying so hard to eliminate by
getting rid of WIDE in the first place.

In otherwords, you CAN support I95,I95,I95 for linear
communicatiosn along the corridor if you want in your
area.  I am not recommending this at all  as a general
thing for interstates.  But I think it is ideal for making
a pipeline say  between say a pair of cities for city-to
city traffic without QRMING the entire state.  TAMPA
to Orland for example.  Or Houston to Dallas, or

Just a thought.  Again, the main use I see in my area
will be for the InterCoastal Waterway,  I think we will
change the name from COAST to ICW.  That is easier
for boaters to use:  ICW,ICW,ICW for example...


More information about the aprssig mailing list