[aprssig] The final WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1 solution!

[AE5PL Lists]

Truly I am not trying to rain on the parade but I haven't seen an answer
to the question that I posted yesterday:

"Was it determined if the KPC 3+ uses the same dupe checking for UIDigi
and UITrace as UIFlood or does it only look for it's call earlier on in
the path for UITrace and UIDigi?  If the latter, won't we end up with a
bunch of dupes again because of the various callsign substitutions?"
(slightly reworded)

I don't know the answer to the question.  I think this has been asked
before but I couldn't find an answer in the posts.  I am hoping that
they are handled the same as UIFlood so only 8.2 firmware and before
(where dupe checking is VERY broken) would be adversely affected.  But I
think this question needs to be answered before this configuration is
settled on.

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Bruninga
> Posted At: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] The final WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1 solution!
> 
> >>> bruninga at usna.edu 4/2/05 9:55:27 AM >>>
> Having slept on it overnight (and hardly sleeping at the
> excitement) I'm still very excited about this solution to the 
> RELAY and WIDE dupe problem and the fill-in
> problem.   Just everythig comes up roses... (though we
> may need some tweaking in LA)
> 
> 1) All legacy paths are dropped.  Everything is simplified
> 2) User recommendations are simple and consistent
> 3) We still get a  universal one hop (WIDE1-1 simply replaces RELAY)
> 4) ALL paths use the perfect n-N dupe-elimination
> 5) We can still use fill-in digis and they can be dumb TNC's
> 6) Each digi can now have 4 traps from 7-7 to 4-4 if they want...
> 7) PacComm digis work seamlessly with WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1
> 
> Once we get the 13 year old mess cleaned up to this new n-N 
> Paradigm, then we will have a consistent baseline on which to 
> begin to develop the network ideas of Pete and many others as 
> we can get people to upgrade digis to new hardware or 
> software, because then we only have one consistent legacy to 
> have to deal with...
> 
> Am I dreaming or are we onto something here....?