[aprssig] While we're on the topic of Paths -- WIDE4-4

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Fri Apr 1 09:28:25 EST 2005

This is a good question.  I only inclujde the 4-4 exception
because I get so much flack from people in some of
those states whenever I suggest 3-3 should do fine.
Maybe as people adjust to the New n-N paradigm they
will not object to 3-3 ?

>>> n0nhj at amsat.org 3/31/05 6:29:05 PM >>>
Do any of the users in the "Vast expanses out west" know of any areas 
where WIDE4-4 is really needed or even wanted?
I cringe every time I see that exception included in message about what

paths to run. 

I've been looking at several of the western states and I can't find 
anywhere that path would provide any service.  All of the digis I can 
find seem to hit an I gate within 2 hops.   Some of the large open
don't have digis, or Igates, so running a larger path buys you nothing.

Here in Western Colorado, WIDE3-3 is too much as it is.  Even though we

have lots of territory between digis, we also have lots of high peaks 
and digis that see each other, compounding our problems.   I'd really 
like to see us drop the recommendation of ever using WIDE4-4.  (Or any

path that creates 4 hops). 

WIDE4-4 from Western Colorado, or Eastern Utah can actually propagate 
your packet all the way to the mexican border which is a bit of

I'd like hear from anyone who knows of  a location where WIDE4-4 is 
really needed, otherwise we ought to drop any references to ever
that large of a path.

The simpler we keep it for the average user, the more likely we are to

be successful. 

We're still planning on cleaning up a lot of the digis in Western 
Colorado, but keep in mind it will be late June or early July before we

can drive to some of our sites.

Chuck  n0nhj
Glenwood Springs, CO

aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org 

More information about the aprssig mailing list