[aprssig] WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 vs WIDE3-3
Ron Stordahl ron.stordahl at digikey.comTue Jan 10 17:39:02 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [aprssig] Whazzuuuuuuuuup!
- Next message: [aprssig] WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 vs WIDE3-3
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
For the sake of this example, this discussion is for a N=3 area, i.e. where a maximum of 3 digipeats are permitted. Also my experience is with UIDIGI-ROM's primarily, so I will confine my discussion to them. In such an area I believe the recommended maximum via would be: via WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 rather than via WIDE3-3 This would be the case since WIDE1-1 is included to as to take advantage of any 'fill-in' digis which limit their response to just WIDE1-1. Additionally if this transmission is heard by a UIDIGI-ROM, it will repeat it and send it on with the remaining unused via of WIDE2-2. Subsequent UIDIGI-ROM's will repeat this, the first leaving a remaining via of WIDE2-1, the second repeating it without any additional repeats possible. Thus the limit of 3 is enforced. Instead if the initial route was WIDE3-3, no properly configured 'fill-in' digi will repeat the packet, however the UIDIGI-ROM's will act properly enforcing the N=3 limit. However if the user sends: via WIDE1-1,WIDE3-3, he will obtain 4 digipeats in either the case of it's being initially repeated by a fill-in digi or by UIDIGI-ROM, thus the limit of 3 has been broken. If I were concerned enough about this in my N=3 area, I would configure my UIDIGI-ROM as N=2 limited digi's, and then WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 would obtain 3 repeats and WIDE1-1,WIDE3-3 would be limited to just 2, as WIDE3-3 would be in the UID list as a literal. It is possible I suppose that some smarter digipeaters would restrict WIDE1-1,WIDE3-3 to a total of 3. Are there such 'smarter' digipeaters? Ron Stordahl, N5IN
- Previous message: [aprssig] Whazzuuuuuuuuup!
- Next message: [aprssig] WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 vs WIDE3-3
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
