[aprssig] WIDE7-7 in the PNW

[Cap Pennell]

Thanks Bob.  Yours is an opinion I share.  You're correct, it's those NWAPRS
rabble-rousers who've talked up that "7-7 in reserve" plot.  <grin>  One
unfortunate problem is there is only room for a maximum of 4 of those
"trapping" aliases in the UIdigi setting of the Kantronics digi TNCs.  Some
other digi types can list 8 of those aliases, and that can help more.

For "S overlay" digis here in Northern California ("SS"=NCA), I favor
UIdigi ON WIDE4-3,WIDE4-2,WIDE3-3,WIDE3-2
in the vers8.3 and higher KPC TNCs.
And if the reply from the TNC to your VER command is instead
KPC3-3F427265-8.2 then
UIDigi ON WIDE1-1,NCA1-1,WIDE3-3,WIDE3-2  ;in v8.2 but not later WIDE1-1
must be listed

And these "S overlay" digis use
CWID     EVERY 0
DIGIpeat ON
DWait    0
HID      OFF
Monitor  OFF
MYAlias  None   ;not RELAY nor WIDE nor TRACE nor WIDE1-1
PASSAll  OFF
UIDWait  OFF
UIFlood  NCA,30,ID  ;_your_ "SS" may vary from NCA
UITrace  WIDE,30

A fill-in digi (KPC-3v8.2 or newer) sets instead
MYAlias  None  ;not RELAY nor WIDE nor TRACE nor WIDE1-1
UIDigi   ON WIDE1-1
UIDWait  OFF
UIFlood  %     ;disabled
UITrace  %     ;disabled

73, Cap KE6AFE


> -----Original Message-----
> From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org
> [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 14:09 PM
> To: 'TAPR APRS Mailing List'
> Subject: [aprssig] WIDE7-7 in the PNW
>
>
> >> Do you really need:
> >> UIDIGI ON WIDE4-4,WIDE5-5,WIDE6-6,WIDE7-7
> >
> > That is to trap long paths. It will give one
> > hop to beacons with a WIDE4-4 etc. path and
> > they will end there. However, the recommendation
> > is to allow WIDE7-7 in case someone ever really
> > needs a long path.
>
> I believe that is only a "recommendation" in the pacific
> northwest.  I personally do not recommend that WIDE7-7 EVER be
> used or recommended for anything period.  Theoretically, such a
> path could saturate the entire west coast from Seattle to
> Sandiego, pacific ocean to Colorado.  I cannot imagine any
> viable use for such an abusive path.  Since the entire pacific
> Northwest can be saturated with a packet as simple as WIDE4-4, I
> would hope that they would limit their recommendations for
> flooding emergencies to only that.
>
> But again, only my opinion from afar...
>
> Bob, Wb4APR