[aprssig] Re: Tracker Smart Pathing: user types, alternatives

[Robert Bruninga]

>>> apratt at bestbits.org 03/23/06 8:05 PM >>>
>But it begs a question. One hop in the LA area is 
>just fine for my use case, but why is it acceptable 
>for yours?

Because there are over 150 users within range of
the surrounding 1 hop digis and the network is 
saturated.  there is no room for anyone to use
routine 2 hop paths.  Hence the sysops all agreed
that the only way for packets to perform reliably
in the LA basin surrounded by 5000 foot digis
was to limit everyone to 1 hop.

>in The mission statement for Proportional Pathing 
>is "To be visible over the air both locally and
>multiple hops away...

OK, I should add "where permitted"...

>This user is not served by having all packets 
>trapped down to one hop. It seems like this would 
>be anathema to you.

It was until 2004 when I looked closely at what the
network had evloved to and finaly realized we must
fix it.  That instigated the New-N paradigm which
figured out a way to use existing digipeaters to trap
excessive paths so that local SYSOPS could regain
some control over the reliability of their network

This trapping is ONLY done by digis that ALSO have
included the "W#,SSn" announcement in the digi's
beaacon.  Warning everyone (every 10 minutes)
within range that the network only supports W# and
lower hops, and also it supports the state and
regional SSn-N.

This pre-announced New-N standard  has reduced 
the load in some areas by factors of 2 to 4, and yet
improved reliability for all locals.  Local being defined
by the ALOHA circle of that area including all users
and digis that constitutes a 100% full 1200 baud channel.

>Did you know that a TinyTrak 3 can have two 
>configurations, and can be told to alternate between 
>them with every packet? 

If I did, I guess I forgot.  That is GREAT news.  That way
someone can use at least a 2 stage Proportional Pathing
now!

>If I set one of the configs to two hops and the other 
>to three, and set the rate to 3-5 minutes, I think things 
>will be pretty sweet.

Yes, great idea.  THough I would probably go with one 
path being WIDE1-1 and the other WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1
in most areas in Calif.  But your point is well taken
that in LA or any place that is trying to protect itself,
the extra hops will be trapped.

>This is effectively three-step Proportional Pathing, 
>with two of the steps implemented in the tracker and 
>one implemented in the big-city digis. Stick a fork in 
>me, I think I'm done.

Yep, not bad.  But you will get a lot of arguments 
in Calif I think that still will suggest that 3 hops
for routine operations in anywhere except the
boonies of Northern Calif might still be excessive.
But can't you also with a switch, select one or
the other one of those paths?  Then you could
select the 2 hop most of the time except when
you go riding out in th eboonies?

That would really be great.  I hope the Tiny Track
makers are watching....

Bob