[aprssig] APRSLink

[Bill Vodall]

> The messaging software doesn't dictate paths.  The IGate software
> dictates the path.  A basic premise that your post assumes is that the
> path a station is heard via is the same path that a packet can be
> returned to that station.  That is an invalid assumption and I can show
> you offline many examples of where this assumption breaks down in the
> real world.

It's a statistical world.  Just because something can be shown to not
"always" be true doesn't mean it won't work a large percentage of
the time.

Smart Igates (for net messages) and smart messaging clients for
direct messages could learn which paths a message is heard via, could
learn which of those work the best for sending messages, and could
always fall to flood paths.   Far more efficient then the general
flood scheme now.

> Also, while using the APRS FLOOD mechanisms increases the problem,
> multiple packet APRS messages sent over multiple hops (remember the
> sender on APRS-IS can only guess at the timing to get a packet through
> to the recipient) will begin to see collision problems, many times with
> the acks coming back from the receiving station.  Add in other traffic
> on the channel and you rapidly lose any ability at having effective
> communication.

So we should continue to refine the software to make more intelliget
guesses.  That's what I said.

Bill

PS.  Once we locals start using the APRSLINK and our local equivalent
for message announcements -- the next step is to tie it in with Echotime
on the local repeater.  *77* to hear who has Email waiting.  This is
starting to be fun.