[aprssig] Re: Tracker Smart Pathing: user types, alternatives
Jason Winningham jdw at eng.uah.eduThu Mar 23 14:46:03 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [aprssig] Re: Tracker Smart Pathing: user types, alternatives
- Next message: [aprssig] Re: Tracker Smart Pathing: user types,alternatives
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Robert Bruninga wrote: > Which is easier? Replacing every TNC digi in the country > with new hardware and maintaining them with updates > everytime an IGate comes on the air or disappears, Manual configuration would be required only if the network designers were so ignorant of basic networking that they didn't allow for auto discovery of such information. It can easily be passively discovered by simply looking at the station type on packets that are received. > to do > it your way, -or- asking new tracker designs to include the > Proportional Pathing Option for those that see its value? If only new tracker designers implement, will it have any noticeable impact? How many stations on the air are digis? How many are trackers? Where will changes have the most impact: on a few theoretically new trackers, or on the infrastructure nodes that are responsible for for the vast majority of the traffic? -Jason kg4wsv
- Previous message: [aprssig] Re: Tracker Smart Pathing: user types, alternatives
- Next message: [aprssig] Re: Tracker Smart Pathing: user types,alternatives
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
