[aprssig] SS7-7

[Robert Bruninga]

By the way.  When I say there is nothing worse than WIDE7-7,
everyone should  also realize that conversly, there is nothing
wrong with using SS7-7.

Example.  MD3-3 will hit every digi in Maryland if launched from
the center of the state.  MD5-5 will hit every digi in Maryland
if launched from the remotest corner of the state.  Soooooo..
There is no difference between MD3-3, MD5-5 or MD7-7.  They have
exactly the same result.  Each of them will hit all 20 or so
digis in the state (depending on where sent). (If that is their
intent).

So nitpicking the "N" in SSn-N paths to me is pointless *if* the
point of a particular packet is truely to flood the local ARRL
(SS) section.  Of course, MOST OF THE TIME a full section flood
is not intended.  In this case, those in Eastern Maryland might
use MD3-3 to cover their end of the state without bothering
Deleware or Virginia, and those in Western Maryland might use
MD3-3 to cover the panhandle of Maryland without bothering, VA,
WV, Ohio and PA... Etc...

I simply want WIDE7-7 to disappear completely and forever.  IN
fact, almost anything above 4 in my mind everywhere is far more
than any emergency would ever call for.  Even listing
"exceptions" for the use of WIDE7-7 seems to me to viloate the
spirit of the New-N paradigm which was to SIMPLIFY APRS paths
and protect the network for IMPROVED reliability... 

But by the same token, SS7-7 is completely different and
perfeclty legitimate if a section wide message from the section
personnel is needed.

Just a point...
Bob, Wb4APR


> -----Original Message-----
> From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org 
> [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org] On Behalf Of Keith
VE7GDH
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:57 PM
> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] WIDE7-7 in the PNW
> 
> Bob WB4APR wrote...
> 
> > I believe that is only a "recommendation" in the pacific
> > northwest. I personally do not recommend that WIDE7-7
> > EVER be used or recommended for anything period.
> 
> My understanding was that only an idiot would use WIDE7-7
unless there
> was a real need for it. It's been a while since I have seen 
> it used, but
> I do from time to time see WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 and other
combinations that
> yield even several hops more than that. If there was some 
> emergency that
> required going more than the recommended number of hops, 
> SSn-N would be
> a good candidate as it could stay in BC or WA etc. as the 
> case was. Even
> something like WA3-3,OR3-3 could be used to get from "here"
down to
> California if need be (assuming there enough digis with
support for
> SSn-N down in that direction) but certainly not for everyday
use!
> 
> > Theoretically, such a path could saturate the entire west
coast
> > from Seattle to San Diego, Pacific Ocean to Colorado. I
cannot
> > imagine any viable use for such an abusive path. Since the
entire
> > pacific Northwest can be saturated with a packet as simple
as
> > WIDE4-4, I would hope that they would limit their
recommendations
> > for flooding emergencies to only that. But again, only my
opinion
> > from afar...
> 
> You are right... WIDE4-4 could potentially make it from 
> "here" (not too
> much north of Seattle) to at least northern California. For 
> normal use,
> I would consider that an abusive path too. It certainly
shouldn't be
> used in normal day-to-day use. It would have to be some kind
of an 
> unusual event, such as trying to deal with some kind of
disaster 
> situation. I would never recommend use of WIDE7-7 unless 
> there were very 
> exceptional circumstances, and even then wouldn't expect it 
> to be overly 
> successful in reaching that far. Hopefully we see more use of 
> WIDE7-7 by 
> idiots than we see "proper" use of it during disasters - hi!
> 
> 73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
> --
> "I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am!"
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>