[aprssig] SMART Networks

[Robert Bruninga]

> I find your hard-headedness on this issue 
> somewhat amusing, since you seem to enjoy 
> jumping on your soapbox to harangue the 
> multitudes on the evils of using the *wrong* 
> paths, especially overly-long paths, yet 
> you're equally adamant to reserve your right 
> to use an abusive path...

No, I would never use an abusive path.  What I use are
"creative" paths, ever mindful of their impact on others.  For
example. I might want a 4 hop path during a special balloon
launch from My station to a station in another state, BUT in
that case I would use WIDE1-1,DIGI2,DIGI3,DIGI4 for example.
This is a completely considerate, but 4 hop path.  The total
number of dupes is 4.  Not many DOZENS that would result from
WIDE4-4.  Even WIDE2-2 can generate about 30 dupes around
here...

No, I do not reserve any right to use ABUSIVE paths, but the
right to use the considerate but creative path I might need in
any instance.


> Your 'let the user decide' stance sounds to me 
> like the argument of the spammers who claim a 
> 'constitutional' right to their abuse as 'free speech'.

Nope.  I assume we operate by gentlemen's agreement to be
considerate.  I try to operate like a gentlmen just like I
assume most other hams would do the same.  We have well defined
what abusive paths are.  And those that use them need to have it
pointed out to them..., many are not aware....

> Give us a break, Bob.  The way to manage the 
> network is to let the digi node operators 
> define a 'service area' geographically, then 
> digi any packet originated in that area, and 
> ignore all others. 

In HAM radio, that would completely doom the network.  Probably
the MAJORITY of all digis are placed and forgotten.  With only
ocasional updates by SYSOPS only once every few years, and then
only after someone bugs them so much to update it, that they
either do it, or take it off the air to avoid the bother.

> That would reduce the operator to choosing one 
> of two paths:  Direct, or 'via APRS', which 
> would digi as far as congestion would allow, 
> hopefully reaching an igate.

Ah, as defined by which absentee sysop?

Any changes to APRS that depend on "smarts" as implemented at
DIGI's under the control of SYSOPS is dooomed to failure.  Look
how long it is taking to change all digis to New-N?  My guess is
5 to 10 years...  Yet, you suggest that SYSOPS will manage these
smart digis as needed on demand.  Even a weekly change might
completely fail a special event that needs the changes to the
smarts NOW.

Nope, I still strongly resist any smarts at the digi for the
above human aspect.  SURE, I can imagine a fantastic "smart"
APRS digi system. But after factoring in human nature as
observed over my  48 years in Ham radio, any such large
integrated system depending on frequent human tampering will
fail.

Bob, WB4APR