[aprssig] APRS in Atlanta - flooding the network

Tue Oct 11 14:49:10 CDT 2005

I agree! 


-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]
On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Curt Mills, WE7U; TAPR APRS Mailing List
Subject: RE: [aprssig] APRS in Atlanta - flooding the network

The thing that bothers me about the long distance packet issue is this, I
doubt anyone has the need to go long distance in all directions at once.
They probably have a specific destination or area desired. In this case you
would simply set your path to the specific call signs of the specific digi's
along the way and not QRM the network in all other directions. This is a
real simple answer to this whole problem with the few folks who seem to need
this feature. It's just like the old days of packet where we had to know
which digi call signs to put in our path to get where we wanted. Beyond that
two hops should be plenty, I can see almost all of NY and Southern New
England with the current WideN paradigm and I can certainly see many more
mobiles over a much larger area than ever before. This tells me that before
this, the ping ponging packets between digi's was killing all the lower
power mobile packets. As far as not being able to hit an I-gate to route
packets long haul, within two hops I would venture a guess that there will
almost always be an I-gate to pick a packet up. I would like to see some
people test this to make sure and it would have to be over a good period of
time to make sure there weren't specific packets colliding and getting
missed. While an I-gate is not pure radio, we never had pure packet radio on
one specific frequency when networks were really booming. Why should we
expect that with APRS? It's just not possible with a carrier sense system.
That was why we had to create backbones without the hidden transmitter
syndrome, and that was connected packets and error checking, not unconnected

Thank You,
Brian N2KGC

-----Original Message-----
From: Curt, WE7U [mailto:archer at eskimo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:23 PM
To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
Subject: RE: [aprssig] APRS in Atlanta - flooding the network

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Christensen, Eric H wrote:

> Bill,
> You still don't get it, do you?  APRS is not for long distance 
> communications.  It is for local tactical communications.  Internet
> were designed to link the local networks together and provide that 
> long
> capability.   If you want extended ranges try HF.

Bill is one of the last that I would ever say that first sentence to!

FWIW I agree with both of you.  Maybe that doesn't make sense to you, I
don't know.  You're spouting the party line, which is great.
It's a good general way to think about APRS.  No problem there.

As far as long-distance packet, if I were involved in an event that was
wide-ranging, such as a volcano or earthquake (we have both around here),
I'll use whatever means at my disposal to go whatever distance makes sense
for the traffic I need to pass.  If it's APRS, so be it.  We have the hooks
in our digi settings here to make that possible.  In any large enough
scenario internet links could be down.  RF rules in that case.  It's up to
the people on scene to determine what modes to use and how to use them to
get the job done.

Curt, WE7U.   APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto:    A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows:  Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U "The world DOES
revolve around me:  I picked the coordinate system!"

aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org

aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3116 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig/attachments/20051011/ed9f992c/attachment.bin>

More information about the aprssig mailing list