[aprssig] An Anniversary Cheer for Stephen Smith

[Robert Bruninga]

>>> Ron Stordahl <ron.stordahl at digikey.com> 03/28/06 5:14 PM 
>My only issue with the WIDE1-1 replacement for 
>RELAY is that, for example, in an N=3 area 
>via WIDE1-1,WIDE3-3 results in 4 hops. 

Yes, and so if it is a 3 hop area, then it should not be 
used.  This is a user education issue.  When we
say a 3 hop area, it means 3 hops or less.  Therefore
WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2  which is 3 hops is the maximum hop 
desired in this area....   Bob


it be better to set up the high digi's to limit N=2 and recommend to 
everyone they use WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2.  N=2 and N=4 areas would have 
corresponding settings. In most instances high digi's themselves could 
limit their maximum beacon to WIDE2-2 and reach an IGate.

Of course if we had smarter digi's, then setting N=3 limit would be 
handled by the digi examining the path specified in the incoming packet, 
which could deal with such things as WIDE1-1,WIDE1-1,WIDE3-3 which I 
believe with UIDIGI would be a 5 hop path.  It will be a while for this 
goal to be achieved.

Ron Stordahl, N5IN



Robert Bruninga wrote:
> Yep, that was the last piece of the puzzle to fall
> into place.  Once we had the replacement for RELAY
> figured out (in North America), then New-N was off
> and running!                 Bob
>
>   
>>>> isobar at bcpl.net 03/27/06 12:09 PM >>>
>>>>         
> Cap Pennell's in a recent message commented that  "The North American "New 
> n-N Paradigm" is already helping our stations (a lot) to conserve our 
> limited available airtime on VHF[...]" and also mentioned, in passing, 
> Stephen WA8LMF.
>
> That reminded me of just  how much the "New Paradigm" has improved APRS 
> throughput in just the last  year, thanks much to Bob Brununga's tireless 
> prodding. Those RELAY and path discussions were (are) endless and didn't 
> seem to  be going anywhere. At least now we've eliminated the RELAY problem 
> and, barring smart software, probably reached a plateau.
>
> Cap's message jogged my memory, and a quick check of the archives shows 
> that only a year ago Stephen proposed:
>
>   
>> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:01:14 -0800
>> From: "Stephen H. Smith" <wa8lmf2 at aol.com>
>> ...
>> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Why RELAY,WIDE... is so bad....
>>
>> On the issue of how to combine home digi first-hop-assist with true 
>> WIDEn-N systems without using first-hop RELAY:
>> How about a path of    "WIDE1-1, WIDE1-1"    or    "WIDE1-1, WIDE2-2"    ??
>> Set the alias of the former home "RELAY" digi to WIDE1-1 instead.   If a 
>> "dumb" home former-RELAY-type digi does the first digipeat, it marks 
>> WIDE1-1 as used.
>> Then the true WIDEn-N digi(s) get a shot at the second part of the 
>> path.   I assume that in the absence of a nearby home digi, a "real" 
>> WIDEn-N would digi the first hop, then the WIDE2-2 part would cause two 
>> more digipeats.
>> The path is compatible with either    first-hop-via-home-station,   or 
>> with all hops via    n-N-only    true wides and preserves exclusively 
>> dupe-supressing WIDEn-N type paths. [...]
>>     
>
> So a tip of the hat to the originator of the WIDE1-1 concept to solve the 
> fill-in digi problem.
>
> Bob Kirk
> N3OZB
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
>   

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