| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 06.03.04 13:10l 257 Lines 9259 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2964-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 6/14
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0FHK<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<VK6HGR<ZL2TZE<
N1UAN<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040306/1036Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20453 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2964-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:57:57 -0500
X-Message-Number: 40
On 3/4/04 at 2:42 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>Steve wrote this before he saw my revision about having
>the IGate only truncate the data and MARK it as to why
>it was "truncated". I think this solves all of Steve's concerns
>below. Steve?
No, it only solves 2 and part of 4. There is still no impact on the amount
of data appearing on the local RF network. Even if the ham knows about the
APRS IS this does nothing to educate the user, because with a position,
when they go to the find.cgi page they will see nothing but a message
saying no position, the weather page will say no data, the message page no
messages.
It does nothing to adress that this is enforcing your will upon others,
even areas that accept these paths, and are denying access to a resource
that belongs to all of amateur radio.
Finally, while it would give me a way to see what is wrong, it still places
me in the position of getting these emails, investigating them, and
answering them.
I'm still very much opposed, you are taking a heavy-handed approach in a
part of the system not being adversly affected.
Instead of just wiping his data out, we could just shoot him or cut his
coax. I'd rank the proposed solution just below these two alternatives.
What is wrong with dealing with these as they become known, with a
courteous email or snail mail, or a personal visit? This is the way ham
radio used to address operator problems...
And as a last resort, after a ham has been educated, if he still refuses
despite knowing he is causing interference, it can be bumped up to the FCC.
I suspect that if the ham is approached in a friendly educational manner
this will vitually never be needed!
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Steve Wilson" <kf6wax@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:09:40 -0700
X-Message-Number: 41
List,
Please not lose sight of one of my comments!
From a point of view on education!
This is a snip from my original post.....
<snip>
One problem that I come up against time and time again is the general lack
of written information on APRS at the book stores and libraries.
I always give the usual pointers to newbie's when I come across them, but to
many the 100 pages on the APRS SPEC seem like a secret manual for the sleep
deprived.
Older books now out of print are not current with today's thinking (even if
you could find one)!!
<snip>
If there is any thing in print that is current then I for one do not know
where it can be obtained!
I did here that Stan was releasing his book again, but will it be updated
Stan?
73s
Steve, KF6WAX Phoenix Valley Area Igate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:28:53 -0500
X-Message-Number: 42
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:29:19 -0500, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>>words "Not everyone's goals are to get to the IS" keeps running
>>through my head.
>
>Yes, but lets say that is the goal of 80% of the users. Then this
>filtering-penalty-technique would still cause an improvement of 80%
>of the offenders (who didnt know any better).
.....
>filtered, but only the content truncated to inidcate that the path
>was truncatetd because it "was too long for the area where it was
>received"... will get the message back to those that DO use the
>APRS-IS...
Not withstanding my previous position, what I think I am hearing from you
is some sort of down the grapevine peer pressure correction of people's
behavior.
And that is a good thing along with directly addressing the problem (the RF
WLAN). But in the former's case, let me suggest to you another alternative,
that is actually easier to implement, doesn't adversely affect anyone, but
still would exert the peer pressure you are looking for.
A automated wall of shame.
That is, every packet that has excessive length, gets posted to a public WEB
PAGE, asking everyone that views the web page to try and contact the offender
and have him correct the problem. The wall of shame would also incorporate a
opt-out mechanism for rural/special cases and only retain bad paths for a
short period of time.
This, coupled with a drive to modernize digi's (akin to the move to 144.39) I
believe would be the best application of resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:36:18 -0500
X-Message-Number: 43
>This, coupled with a drive to modernize digi's (akin to the move to 144.39) I
>believe would be the best application of resources.
My memory of the move to 4.39 was that it wasn't all that traumatic.
Some crystal changes, others just had to turn a couple knobs.
Does MFJ still offer their data radio on the old freq?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:37:13 -0500
X-Message-Number: 44
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:58:50 -0600, Matt Werner wrote:
>How do you combat digi operators who run WIDE7-7?
Your saying a fixed, high profile digi, is sending out a beacon on that path?
If so, simple, call them on the phone and tell them to stop trashing the RF
network. None of these offered solutions will cure the root ignorance, to fix
that you still need to get in the trenches, and this is a good example of
that. You might even need to talk to a OO if they resist. There is no
universal solution here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:41:26 -0500
X-Message-Number: 45
On 3/4/04 at 2:46 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>But right now there are only 6 or so IGate software codes.
>They could be updated overnight and take a few weeks
>for IGates to upgrade. Done. ENd of problem.
This is assuming you can get all of the authors to issue upgrades to all of
their code (and there are more than 6, do not forget there are multiple
forks of aprsd).
Even then, updating the code is the easy part...it would be a long time
until all the IGate operators upgrade. Until all do, you are actually
INCREASING the incentive for people to use longer paths.
Of course, you are right, even here this is easier than replacing all the
digis, and if this actually accomplished something, I'd not be objecting,
but this would do NOTHING to address the actual problem.
Again, what is wrong with the old fashioned education by fellow hams???
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:45:33 -0500
X-Message-Number: 46
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:57:57 -0500, Steve Dimse wrote:
>amount of data appearing on the local RF network. Even if the ham
>knows about the APRS IS this does nothing to educate the user,
>because with a position, when they go to the find.cgi page they will
>see nothing but a message saying no position, the weather page will
>say no data, the message page no messages.
....
>Finally, while it would give me a way to see what is wrong, it still
>places me in the position of getting these emails, investigating
>them, and answering them.
>
i.e there is a disconnect between the RF network and the Internet network.
The user gets no positive feedback of success or failure, and is not in a
position to self diagnose the problem themselves. Hence this will generate a
plea for help, as you cite above.
On the other hand, with local digipeater filtering, there IS positive
feedback, the user can self diagnose the problem themselves without national
intervention.
Education is important, but just like trying to police part 15 users on the
ham bands, trying to police APRS newbies is just as futile. Hence you need a
multiple prong approach, which includes both education as well as a filtering
methods to protect the fragile low-speed RF WLAN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot! and flush twice
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:48:41 -0500
X-Message-Number: 47
Bill,
7-7 can easily make 111 packets... You aren't thinking like a packet...
Lets say that every digipeater will send its' packet to three others...
Original packet sent out at WIDE7-7... One packet.
Path After # of Digi's Seen
Number of Packets Total
First Digi - WIDE7-6 3 2
packets.
Second Digi - WIDE7-5 9 11
packets.
Third Digi - WIDE7-4 27 38
packets.
Fourth Digi - WIDE7-3 81 119
packets.
Fifth Digi - WIDE7-2 243 362
packets.
Sixth Digi - WIDE7-1 729 1091
packets.
Seventh Digi - WIDE7 2187 3278 packets.
I think these numbers are correct...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
