[aprssig] ax25 v 2.2

[Robert Bruninga]

>Remember that the limit isn't a "two-hop" limit, 
>but a 2-digi limit. If your packet digi path is: WIDE4-4, 
>then you have 1 digi, but get 4 hops...

The WIDEn-N system is *not* in AX.25 because it is an APRS
specific APRS enhancement by some MFRS and APRS 
software supporters.  In fact, we have made MANY 
enhancements that the TAPR AX.25 team has ignored 
in their new spec.

We must get them to open their eyes to recognize that
APRS is a well established AX.25 application and they
are being short-sighted in their new spec... (or at least
the one I saw a year or so ago)...  de WB4APR, Bob

>>> josecanuc at gmail.com 1/14/05 12:43:45 PM >>>

I'm not certain, but the 2-digi limit appears to be a push to limit
source routing and let the digis decide how to route. Don't know how
many digis do this, certainly no APRS digis. It would seem to be in
the frame of mind of real "networks" of digis, like the networks of
the Internet, with router configuration protocols, etc.

-Lance KJ5O

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:36:08 -0500, Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu>
wrote:
> >AX25 version 2.2 limits the number of digipeaters to 2.
> >Has anyone implemented 2.2?  What effect would the
> >2  digipeater limit have on APRS?
> 
> The people who are writing 2.2 do not seem to recognize
>  APRS or other forms of UI communications.  We agree
> completely that more than 2 hops for connected protocol
> is not wortth trying on a typical shared channel.  But
> the SPEC should not be used to try to overcome dumb
> uses of the hardware.
> 
> I can imagine several scenarios where multiple level 2 hops
> over 2 may be useful and may be quite reliable.  Yes, these
> scenarious are RARE and unusual, but the spec should
> allow them!
> 
> Further, although APRS works best at about 2 hops in very
> dense areas of 60 to 100 stations, it can easily use more hops
> in many low density applications.  Again, the hardware and firmware
> of a TNC should allow greater hops for RARE or unusual
> applications.  Besides one-way UI packets like APRS are
> about equally reliable over FOUR hops as a connected
> packet is at 2 hops.  THus if these spec writers are hard
> set on a 2 hop limit for connected protocol, then they
> must allow a 4 hop UI as a minimum equivalent limit for UI..
> 
> Who do we get this common sense to?
> de Wb4APR, Bob
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org 
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org 
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig 
> 
> 


-- 
J. Lance Cotton, KJ5O
joe at lightnigflash.net 
http://kj5o.lightningflash.net 
Three Step Plan: 1. Take over the world. 2. Get a lot of cookies. 3.
Eat the cookies.

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