| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 28.09.03 12:08l 306 Lines 14942 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2010-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Sep 25, 10/11
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0IUZ<DB0GOS<DB0ACC<ON0RAT<
ON0DXC<WA7V<WB0TAX<LZ3NP<YV6BTF<EA5AKC<KD4GBA<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030927/1418Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:9145 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2010-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: I guess we're going to agree to disagree Bob. Part 1 of ?
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:28:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 39
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Steve Jones wrote:
>on 9/25/03 8:40 PM, Bob Bruninga at bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
>
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10*,WIDE,WIDE3-3 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:50]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,W8MWO*,WIDE3-3 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:51]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,AB4WS-10*,WIDE3-3 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:52]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,W8MWO*,WIDE3-2 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:53]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,W8MWO*,WIDE3-2 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:53]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,KD4EVB-10*,WIDE3-3 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:57]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,W8MWO*,WIDE3-2 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:57]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>>>MASKED-12>S9PV8Q,K8SCH-10,KF4INN-10*,WIDE3-2 [09/13/2003
>>>01:17:58]:<UI>:`p>]l!ck/"6\}masked
>
>Seems to me that W8MWO is unnecessarily duping packets?
>
>Wouldn't it benefit from some smarter digi software which would examine the
>contents of the packet and reject the dupes?
Sure, but how many more years until digipeaters are upgraded? What I am
proposing is that if you turned off WIDEn-N digipeating (right now, today)
in this area then you would only have seen ONE of those W8MWO packets (NO
dupes). Notice the DUPES are because of the WIDE3-2 further routing!!!
I am not against further new ideas and new routing mechanisms. My
proposal for "disable-n-N routing" is only to give LOCAL sysops something
they can do NOW at their LOCAL level to get control of OUTSDIE AREA
flooding that is damaging their network. No more... no less...
Those that understand the big picture and want to use APRS LOCALLY and
RELIABLY will understand that. Those that want to see hundreds of
stations for hundreds of miles will never understand it...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: I guess we're going to agree to disagree Bob. Part 1 of ?
From: "Georgette Sampson" <georgette.sampson@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:44:26 -0500
X-Message-Number: 40
I think a lot of the problems are related to the technology of packet
radio. (i.e., low tech).
Some great discussions earlier about the limitations of the 8 bit systems
used at digipeaters, and the real need to migrate to a 32 bit computer with
enough memory to actually perform real algorithms.
The "WIDE digipeater is better than the WIDEN-N digipeater" or vice-versa,
are arguments that have no meaning when you have a real computer device.
Suppose you had a Compact Flash configured as a hard drive, a large RAM
drive, and a bunch of regular RAM? Would a WIDE or WIDEN-n digipeater be
your goal?
I know that I would probably come-up with a system that did quite a bit of
analysis, and table searches before it ever transmitted a thing. Maybe the
problem is that proper DUP checking is not possible with the technology at
hand, and blindly re-transmitting what is essentially garbage data, rather
than only allowing valuable non-redundant tactical data to flow, is the
problem.
Jo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: I guess we're going to agree to disagree Bob. Part 1 of ?
From: Steve Jones <s.jones@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:20:40 -0400
X-Message-Number: 41
on 9/25/03 9:28 PM, Bob Bruninga at bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
>Sure, but how many more years until digipeaters are upgraded? What I am
>proposing is that if you turned off WIDEn-N digipeating (right now, today)
>in this area then you would only have seen ONE of those W8MWO packets (NO
>dupes). Notice the DUPES are because of the WIDE3-2 further routing!!!
I'm pretty sure the software/firmware exists now. We're using DigiNed on
our local digi's due to it's ability to eliminate dupes. By switching to
DigiNed, dupe traffic in this area dropped quite a bit.
You can either make the trip to the site to disable widen-n routing or make
the same trip and install new firmware/software.
Seems disabling widen-n digipeating is the lazy way to go about solving the
problem.
--
Steve <s.jones@rogers.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: I guess we're going to agree to disagree Bob. Part 1 of ?
From: Ernie Howard <W8eh-Ernie@cinci.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:31:51 -0500
X-Message-Number: 42
Hummm, now I have a dog in this fight..... Time to jump in.
W8MWO is our club digi that I manage. It is running a KPC-3+ with 8.3
firmware. It is set up for proper WIDEn support as well as RELAY and WIDE. My
guess is that the reason you see W8MWO several times here is because of the
WIDE in the path. After K8SCH-10 digipeats this packet, several other WIDEs
are digipeating. Then W8MWO is acting on the WIDE3-3 in the path, decreasing
it to 3-2.
We could benifit from smarter digi software that was able to recognize dupes
better. For us it would have to be firmware in a kantronics or a TNC2
compatable. Computer operation is not an option.
Ernie W8EH
------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Howard, Jr W8EH Middletown, Ohio
E-mail: w8eh@arrl.net
How's the weather at W8EH? - http://wx.findu.com/w8eh
Web Page: http://home.cinci.rr.com/w8eh
------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: I guess we're going to agree to disagree Bob. Part 2 of ?
From: "Jeff Thomas - KD4EVB" <kd4evb@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:40:42 -0400
X-Message-Number: 43
Bob, I'm not going to bombard the list with any more of this beyond this
post, we've eaten enough bandwidth. This ego battle will continue to go
nowhere and these lists have had more than their share of such over the
years. Everyone thinks they know it all, but few (if any) are willing to do
any posting of supporting data for peer review. I'm going to post data for
review. Do I know best how to review it and generate statistics, nope
hopefully others can though. Heads up to the PERL gurus out there. Maybe
we can all learn and few things, and see some eye openers on what really
goes on with the RF side of things. I'd suggest you keep an eye on:
www.qsl.net/kd4evb
I'll put up 24x7 logs for a few days prior and a few days after I do the
switching off of WIDE. Real world data, you and anyone else can feel free
to review and comment on. I could be wrong in where the problem lies, I'm
certain though that this measure addresses one of the issues. Opinions on
how proper my move is, well we'll just let history and the logs show what
they show.
"> Ah, but what problem did you fix? Yes, you cut packets but what other
>prolems did you INTRODUCE?:
>
>1) You no longer supported the national recommendaions for visitors
>2) You disabled callsign substitution as a path tracing function
>3) You killed APRS first-digi identification (identifying where a packet
>entered the APRS system on RF."
As for part 1, gee I'm really going to loose sleep over that. From
reviewing the annual migration to the Dayton hamfest this year, I only saw
one station that didn't get out at least one hop with WIDE off locally.
Most folks are using WIDEn-n or some variation of RELAY,WIDEn-n (most
mobiles the later). A good arguement can be made that the current rules are
half of what's got us where we are today.
By the way, cutting packets is exactly what I'm after. If I break a few old
things rarely noticed by 99% of the users anyways, then you know
what...that's a ratio of dissatisfied customers I can live with for a more
reliable local channel. Does it fix the ultimate problem at the source,
nope, but no one else is suggesting anything better with data to back it up
YET. We've got plenty of opinions though, grin.
Part 2, anything with RELAY in the front of the path will be indicate the
entry digi. Those running a pure WIDEn-n path only, don't really care
anyways. Never mind good old TRACE and TRACEn-n are still there.
part 3, combination of the above answer, 99.9% of the time...who cares. Can
always check the IGATE raw logs and get a good idea of where a problem
station originates from. If someone wants to cause issues on RF, there are
all kinds of ways to do it regardless of any of the above and a multitude of
ways to track the problem down. The main goals of WIDEN are dupe
elimination, more control on how far things ripple out, and shorter packets,
all three benficial on an already overloaded channel.
Do I feel good about how I've tackled this and broken with standards, nope,
but I'm not going to go confess to my priest over it either. Only a hobby,
a hobby about experimentation, pushing the envelope, public service, and
never being satisfied that something can't be done. Good leaders are often
criticized serverly at first, then admired later.
"Again, you are too focused on local DUPES and not looking at the BIG
>problem which is too many packets from too many users FLOOODING too big of
>an area."
I'll make the same argument that you are focusing on WIDEN versus the big
picture. I'll concede I'm not where you are at, and likewise you're not
where I'm at.
">The only thing you did was totally arbitrarily throw out a lot of users
>packets. Of course you "solved the problem" of too many packets that way,
>but shucks, you could use an AK-47 and shoot evedry third driver and solve
>alot of commuting problems too..."
In my monitoring last fall, I didn't seem to notice this at all. I hate to
tell you, the impact for the vast majority if not nearly 99.% of the local
users is not as bad as you'd like to make it out to be, sometime the pros
outweigh the cons. I threw out the loops and dupes coming in from the outer
ring of my coverage area of concern. Locals running reasonable paths, trust
me they figure out they're in a widen only world real fast, hams are
creative folks if they want to get out...they'll figure out the path needed
real fast. If I impact one or two poorly configured trackers out of say a
hundred coming thru the area and unable to adjust their paths easily, that's
another ratio I can sleep well on. If a local doesn't like it, they can
feel free to put up another digi nearby and I'll glady turn mine off and put
the gear to other use, then they can deal with the mess.
">But "POWREFUL" in your terms means MAXIMUM FLOODING."
Again, you're focused on those poor WIDE5-5 or greater packets. Granted
those guys shouldn't be doing that, but hey cars kill people in accidents,
using your theory let's just ban all automobile traffic.
I also noticed one thing interesting. Bob, you don't operate a digi (at
least under your call), guess PCSAT could be counted but that's apples n
oranges here. Have you ever operated one in the last couple years? Yet you
feel it appropriate to tell digi sysops to feel free to kill our most modern
digipeating protocol cause some guy running WIDE5-5 over there (and maybe a
few others) has irked you off? You're not the many of us out here that
spent the bucks (some based upon your own (and others) endorsement of WIDEN
as being the solution years ago), time, and so on to put up WIDEN/TRACEN
compliant RF networks that just because a few idiots are bothering your area
with incosiderate settings, you suddenly want to toss out the baby, the
bathwater, the tub, and rip out the bathroom walls too. I've got well over
4 digits of my own gear on the air right now, many others in the same boat
and we don't have the Navy to fund our latest whim. You want to say I'm
stepping way out of bounds, huh? If I had a dollar for every "what the
**** (or worse language) is Bob thinking comment I've received, I'd be well
on the way towards some serious beer money, grin. Funny thing though, I
haven't gotten one negative response yet....of course now I'll get a ton of
them. Oh well, been called worse by better ;-)
"If you are trying to support more than about 50 uers on the local 144.39
>1200 baud channel then you are already beyond the point of total failure.
>Finding new ways to EFFICIENTLY flood those local areas is only making
>things worse..."
Well, then you're probably right for around here (got 473 stations in the
logs right now for 24 hours) and we're just screwed regardless of what I do
huh? We're usually in the lower 300 range so I'd guess the band is up, oh
boy kiss local reliability goodbye, the digi's TNC DCD light probably looks
"stuck on" right now, it isn't far from that normally....I've even got a 1
minute MPEG movie I'll toss up on the site here in a few days, you can see
it with your own eyes how bad it is out here.
Let me remind folks of a little story about packet radio in the 80's and
early 90's. Everyone took the easy route and tried to build wide coverage
networks based upon a single 1200 baud 2m frequency versus 1200 baud user
channels and 9600 baud backbones. We preached the folly of this till blue
in the face. Most of these single freq networks failed miserably and faded
away, helped in the mid 90's by the internet boom and this thing called
APRS. Looks like we're doomed to never learn from our past with APRS also.
">I am now coming to realize that "POWERFUL" means MAXIMUM DAMAGE to the
>network and it should be restricted to ONLY those low population areas
>where it is needed. and NOT flooding out in ALL directions without bound."
Personally, I tend to think it's more appropriate as your user/digi density
increases. But hey we obviously are not going to agree on much anyways, no
surprise there.
I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore. I'll do what very few do,
I'll back my opinions up with data to support it (or not) on the website.
Everyone, including yourself, can feel free to disect it all you want. If
you want to offer a better way, then I ask (and others ask) that you back it
up with more than "just because I say so." I've got some interesting
suggestions in my inbox, I'll be listing them on the website when I get
time, if you're serious about APRS's future, then these ideas are worth
consideration.
Again, nothing personal here, maybe sometime we'll meet at a DCC and we can
have a beer and laugh at all this.
My applogies to the list for all the "list bandwidth" but I feel this is a
attitude threat to WIDEN (that has little to any basis) needs to be
addressed, argued, and discussed. Who is to say what is right anymore, heck
who knows anymore "right" seems to change by the week anymore. I'm not
saying what I've been doing here locally is the best path to walk down
either, it's just an admittedly stop gap solution.
73 de Jeff, KD4EVB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
