| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 06.03.04 13:10l 248 Lines 9097 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2963-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 5/14
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0FHK<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<VK6HGR<ZL2TZE<
N1UAN<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040306/1030Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20451 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2963-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:29:19 -0500
X-Message-Number: 32
>>>"Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU> 3/4/04 2:07:57 PM
>>>
After reflecting...
>This would solve the problem for some, but not for all...
>The 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). Yet, it would not impact the person
on RF that actually did need to use that long hop for one special use that
one special time...
But as noted in my previous email, the packet should not be 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...
de Wb4apr, bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:31:57 -0500
X-Message-Number: 33
>>>Mark Cheavens said:
>The two items you are overlooking are these:
>RELAY, RELAY, WIDE, WIDE, WIDE (or similar paths)
Not as big a problem by an order of magnitude. Not worth addressing.
>Wide2-7 would still make it through 5 hops away when
>it reaches WIDE2-2. (Only the SSID is decremented, the
>number before the ssid is only a courtesy).
The filter would filter on both N's.
>The exclusion list would have to be quite large!
I dont think so...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:35:57 -0500
X-Message-Number: 34
But is it the goal of 80% of the users that have these god-awful paths? I
think RF control would be better... That way new users that don't know how
to construct a path don't have to worry about that because it will be
constructed for them... Those that want to be butts won't be wrecking the
surrounding area, either.
Personally, I'll support both.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bruninga [mailto:bruninga@usna.edu]
>>>"Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU> 3/4/04 2:07:57 PM
>>>
After reflecting...
>This would solve the problem for some, but not for all...
>The 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).
Yet, it would not impact the person on RF that actually did need
to use that long hop for one special use that one special time...
But as noted in my previous email, the packet should not be
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...
de Wb4apr, bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:38:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 35
>>is intolerable, the IGate filters it out. It puts the IGate sysops
>>in control of stuff in their areas, and because of the penalty, the
>>end user learns why he is not getting in.
>>>Jeff King said:
>it would be better to do this at the source, and that would be
>at the digipeater's not the IGATES.
Ah, but we can do it overnight in SOFTWARE at the IGates but it would take
10 years to replace all the firmware digis. Thus, it is orders of magnitude
easier to do it at the Igates.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:42:26 -0500
X-Message-Number: 36
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?
Bob
>>Eric's suggestion to Filter them from the APRS-IS is something
>>worth considering...
Steve said:
I'm strongly opposed.
First, it does nothing to address the problem, since it assumes that
people's reason for setting these paths is to get the the APRS IS. The
reason people do this is ignorance, and filtering them out of the APRS IS
does nothing to address their ignorance. It does nothing to address the
congestion these packets cause, and as was pointed out, may worsten it for
those that know about and use the APRS IS, as they expand their path in an
attempt to get a position onto the internet.
Second, it makes it impossible for those outside the area to see these
packets, identify a problem, and attempt to educate the person.
Third, some areas accept these long paths, who gives you the right to
decide all areas must obey your idea of right and wrong? What is wrong with
local governance? Why should the APRS IS, which is completely unaffected by
these paths, be the place where the enforcing of other's wills is done? The
APRS IS was created to collect all APRS RF activity in the world, not just
that with paths you approve!
Fourth, I'm the guy that is going to get emailed by those hams when their
positions don't appear on findU, which is bad enough, but since their
packets have been filtered, I have no way of knowing what they are doing
wrong. This will waste my time and leave me unable to educate people.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:46:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 37
>>>"Christensen, Eric" said:
>I think RF control would be better... That way new users
>that don't know how to construct a path don't have to worry
>about that because it will be constructed for them...
>Those that want to be butts won't be wrecking the
>surrounding area, either.
But the RF method wont happen for 10 years or more and ONLY if you can get
agreement of EVERYONE and KEEP their attention for 10 years to pull it off.
There are over 1000 hardcoded digipeaters.
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.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:54:00 -0500
X-Message-Number: 38
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:38:27 -0500, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>>>>Jeff King said:
>
>>it would be better to do this at the source, and that would be at
>>the digipeater's not the IGATES.
>
>Ah, but we can do it overnight in SOFTWARE at the IGates but it
>would take 10 years to replace all the firmware digis. Thus, it is
>orders of magnitude easier to do it at the Igates.
Yeah, but what are you fixing? IMHO, nothing, your just covering the problem
up. The fragile low speed RF lans will be continued to be trashed by people
who don't care that their paths are excessive.
Better to address the problem, then attempt to cover it up, which ultimately
means it will never be fixed.
And why would it take 10 years to replace all the digi's? I'm making the
assumption most of those running Wide's actually care, and I'm sure they do,
so if they could fix the problem, they could. It has been idenfified DigiNed,
plus a KISS rom could fix the problem. In reading the specs on UIDIGI, which
is a standalone firmware solution, it appears to solve the issue as well.
And for your claim doing it "overnight in SOFTWARE" at the igates, why do you
think that is true but not true at high profile digi's? The first assumption,
is the guy running a home igate would update his software.... where as a guy
running a high profile digi (in addition to his home station) would not.
I understand what you are advocating, I'm just suggesting there is a big
difference between a 1200 baud shared WLAN and the internet, as far as
channel capacity.
Its best to treat the problem then treat the symptom. The problem is on the
RF WLAN's, not the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Matt Werner" <kb0kqa@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:58:50 -0600
X-Message-Number: 39
How do you combat digi operators who run WIDE7-7? We are seeing that here
in MN where operators in southern WI run *digis* at WIDE7-7. Some of the
home stations are starting to do it there now too (I suppose lead by
example). What we end up with is a bunch of unnecessary traffic that can
collide with local traffic.
73 - Matt
KB0KQA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
