[aprssig] WIDEn-N question

[Robert Bruninga]

I can not make sense out of all the back and forths here.  So
here is  what it should be:

Mobiles: 
For one hop:  Use WIDE1-1 
For two hops: Use WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1 (Higher reliability using
fill-ins)
For two hops: Use WIDE2-2         (Slightly more efficient)
For 3 hops:   Use WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 BUT NOT RECOMMENDED IN MOST
AREAS

Fixed stations:
1 hop:   Use WIDE1-1
1 hop:   Or  WIDE2-1 if there is no need to bring up your
neighbors W1-1...
2 hops:  Use WIDE2-2
3 hops:  Don’t.  If you need to go 3 or more  hops, then chose a
SPECIFIC path in a given direction.  Do NOT flood an entire
state just to talk to a station in one direction.

The beauty of the New-N paradigm is that all packets are now
TRACED and contain the PATH they took to reach you.  If you need
to talk to someone at a distnace, reverse the path.

Bob, Wb4APR


> -----Original Message-----
> From: aprssig-bounces at tapr.org 
> [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Steve Noskowicz
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:54 PM
> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] WIDEn-N question
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Lynn,  I hafta' chuckle every time I see that (Mr)
> 
> That's ok.    I understand 100%.  I am also only repeating my 
> recollection/understanding (for validation or correction).  
> Perhaps Bob will read my words and either confirm or suggest 
> that I change my brand of sedative.  (:-)
> 
> I intentionally left this detail out of my Beginner Guide and 
> just say "for a path, just use bla, bla".   I also don't go 
> into that level of detail when doing a talk since it is 
> always beginners and it's better to just say use this path 
> and shut up! - so to speak (:-).
> 
> I remember reading the "...fix14439" page and questioning the 
> ...WIDE 2-2  vs.  WIDE3-2  and wanted to understand the 
> purpose/intent/desire.  I'm pretty sure I kept it off list.  
> I had a desire for it to make sense and WIDE 2-2 seemed to 
> rub me the wrong way when WIDE2-1 was "correct".  I've been 
> an Engineer way too long.
> 
> Perhaps you can ping him to see if my interpretation was an 
> original intent, or not.  It sure seems reasonable to want to 
> know the packet's intent.
> 
> 73, Steve, K9DCI
> 
> --- Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
> 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > I'm really not being contentious, but I've never seen a
> > recommendation of the N-1 described below.  You caught
> > me at a good/bad time as I'm actually preparing an APRS
> > presentation for our local ham club and had just re-read the
> > following New-N Paradigm pages....
> > 
> > http://www.aprs.org/fix14439.html
> > 
> > http://www.aprs.org/newN/relayFIX.txt
> > 
> > As it says there, I've only seen WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 suggested
> > and never WIDE1-1,WIDE3-2 although I completely understand
> > the logic behind the latter.
> > 
> > Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
> > 
> > Steve Noskowicz wrote:
> > > In other words, For strict adhereance to the New
> > Paradigm (and ignoring which digi uses which part of the
> > path), the above "should" be:
> > > WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1
> > >    vs.
> > > WIDE1-1,WIDE3-2
> > >    vs.
> > > WIDE1-1,WIDE4-3
> > > 
> > >    to be completely correct (again, ignoring
> > if it is wise to do).
> > > 
> > > On this one   WIDE1-1,WIDE3-2  you
> > will sometines see that WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2 is sometimes
> > recommended instead.  That is the one that Bob said
> > would be expected by come operators (who look at such
> > things) and that is was "ok" for that reason even though it
> > is not per the paradigm.
> > > 
> > > Hope that is clear ...um...  and that I "get" the
> > paradigm.
> > > 
> > > 73, Steve, K9DCI
> > > 
> > > --- On Tue, 11/3/09, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) 
> <ldeffenb at homeside.to>
> > wrote:
> > >   
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > aprssig mailing list
> > aprssig at tapr.org
> > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>