[aprssig] RE: NetNodes, the future

[Robert Bruninga]

Wow, dick
I agree with everyone of your facts, but disagree
with everyone of your conclusions.! becuse you dont seem
to be following the thread.

1) This discussion has nothing to do with APRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a discussion of what we could also be doing with
AX.25 packet to pass emergency traffic and messages
and emails and files via radio in support of emergencies.

2) It is physically impossible to do these kinds of things
on APRS over multiple hops on RF.  Those that try, not
only fail that mission but also QRM everyone else that
is trying to use APRS for what APRS was designed for!

>>Thus, why not a universal global NETgate system based
>>on the very viable and transparent NetROM/TheNET system?
>>Seems a slam-dunk to me...
>
>That hit my funny-bone and I have several observations.
>APRS doesn't need a paragraph to convey critical data.

AGREED!  

>I see no relationship between the modes (connected and
>unconnected). Each has a benefit, and now we are using
>the APRS platform to revive the dead and dying.
>Where is the slam-dunk Bob?

You are not only on the wrong page but reading the wrong
book!  The two are separate and should remain so!
We are NOT trying to use APRS to revive conventional
packet.  We are simply ***Observing* that anyone with
a PC can now do AX.25 packet without even owning a
TNC. So why dont we use our PC's and radios for
something other than APRS when such a need exists???

>Look at our short one-liners and the information conveyed. I
>personally don't see how connected packets and paragraphs of
>rag-chewing can be a benefit to APRS. Maybe I feel a little
>guilty that I gave up my PBBS and NOS operations. Your
>observation is one of compassion... not practical. 

You are simply not following the thread.  The CONNNECTD
point-to-point is not for BS and rag chewing (unless some
one wants to waste their time that way).  It is for extending
digital communictions whre needed to do what might be
needed and for which APRS is not suitable...

>Sorry, no matter what we call it or what we try to do with it,
>conventional connected packets won't add to the flexibility
>of reporting station positions or messaging on APRS.

AGREED!  AGREED!  AGREED!

>With Net/ROM and NETgate, users cannot issue a connect to a
>distant station without knowing the path. The longer the path,
>the less effective it becomes. 

AGREED!  That is why we proposed something new like "NETgate"!

It is only like a NetROM on the first RF hop.  There are no
long RF hops.  AND there are no paths!  Its just like the APRS
IGate system.  Once you connect on RF to the NETgate,
all you need to do is C XXXX where XXXX is the end user 
(anywhere on the planet) that you need to connect to!

>From my experience, not many stations could use a node 
>at the same time. The waiting to get somwhere took a lot of 
>patience.

AGREED!

That's why this NETgate system is totally different:
1) It does not use multi-hop on 1200 baud RF, but uses
     the speed of the internet for all connections
2) This system is only for the immediate use of a person that
    needs to use it.  Nothing else.  No need to support
   dozens of people at the same time
3) Since it is not linked on RF, then there can be dozens
    of local NETgates on dozens of local freqs that can be
    used by dozens of simultaneous users at the same time
    and the internet has no problem handling it...!

>The reason the APRS-IS works so well is because of those
>one-liners!

AGREED!  That is why everyone will continue to use APRS
for those one lines and for instant communications.  and only
those portable stations that need to do something else will
QSY to use a NETgate if needed.

>I'm glad that APRS isn't a point to point connected mode <g>.
>And, I see no relationship between the 2. Even if we augment
>APRS on an existing net/ROM network, I don't think we'll be
>helping anyone. Certainly not the conventional packet old
>timers that are hanging around. We are world's apart.

You are missinterpreting the term of "augment APRS".  It 
has nothign to do with APRS.  I should have used the term
"augment APRS users" so that they have an alternative
to APRS when they need to operate portable without the
internet and do something that APRS was not designed
for and cannot support.  That is, QSY to the local NETgate
and do their thing...

>In one breath we are saying clean up our mess, and in another
>we are saying add to it. Just my 2 cents worth... we are
>heading to disaster with too many irons in the fire. It's to
>the point that the APRS mobile traveler has no idea which
>configuration or path will work for his needs.

Your are still completely confusing two separate but simple
concepts.  Thre are two things going on.

1) Clean up the APRS mess by getting awaay from WIDEn-N
flooding everywhere so that we get back to universal operation 
that will work well everywhere.

2) Independent of APRS, recognize that everyone that has 
a laptop and a radio can now do DIGITAL with no special 
hardware and software and so what else can AX.25 PACKET 
radio give him?  that APRS cannot.?

>The bottom-line is that our creativity is alienating APRS
>users with what Pete said, 'decisions, decisions, decisions...' 

No decisions required.  RELAY,WIDE works for all mobiles.
and WIDEn-N flooding is killing APRS in many areas. 
And APRS cannot do all things for all people. if you need to 
pass files and bulk data, you cant do it on APRS and need
an alternative.

I just dont think that users are so confused that they cannot
follow these two simple threads.  But if talking about  new
ideas for AX.25 confuses some, then forget it.  Stay
focused on the new n-N paradigm and lets clean up
APRS so it works like it used to!

Bob
 

_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org 
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig