[aprssig] Packet routing, path specification.
Jason Winningham
jdw at eng.uah.edu
Thu Jun 23 10:25:22 EDT 2005
On Jun 23, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Rick Green wrote:
> When are the spec writers going to realize that the messaging
> 'feature' is really an abomination in a broadcast protocol? The
> retries, acks, etc. coupled with non-routed, broadcast in all
> directions, digipeaters, is the 'straw that broke the camel's back' on
> 144.39.
I'm curious, do you have any numbers to support this? I'll try to
check my TNC logs when I get home to see what the local picture is.
Judging from the infrequent number of message packets I see on the
D700, very little of the traffic is message traffic. I'd say 80% or
90% of the message traffic I see is NWS alerts, and I certainly want to
keep those flowing.
A single message may generate a high number of packets compared to a
position report, but the messaging feature is very useful, IMO.
I suspect encouraging all these users of brain-dead TNCs that send out
$GPGGA sentences to switch to a tracker that can produce MIC-E
sentences would have a _much_ greater impact on bandwidth utilization
than eliminating messaging.
Let's have a compressed weather packet, too, while we're at it.
-Jason
kg4wsv
More information about the aprssig
mailing list