| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 06.03.04 14:30l 249 Lines 9321 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2971-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 13/14
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<IK1ZNW<ZL2TZE<VK3TE<
ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040306/1138Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20461 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2971-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Bill Vodall - WA7NWP <wa7nwp@jnos.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:17:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 89
>>And why would it take 10 years to replace all the digi's?
>
>Actually, it would take forever, because 80% of the
>digi owners will never change their hardware...
The feedback I've had and other observation lead me to believe a large
number of digipeater operators actually want to do what works good and
what's best for the network. Given a better option, they will be happy to
act on it.
Of course it's not an overnight thing. It's also not a forever thing. If
it's going to take 10 years, it's best we start now.
>>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.
>
>Yep, and it has been 5 years since DIGI-NED came out
>and how many digis run it? 2%? There is the proof
>that you cannot fix it at the digis...
That is no proof. The hardware and software to build digi platforms is
evolving at an incredible rate and it continues to get cheaper. The time
is coming, or here, where it's easily feasible to replace a legacy digi
with a real computer.
>>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?
>
>Well that's so obvious I'm suprised you asked!
>Because you can download a new IGate in 1 minute and
>it doesnt cost a cent. Whereas to replace a digi takes
>WEEKS of planning and cost and TIME!!!
>
>>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.
>
>No, it is saying thta one of those options is 50 times easier
>and human nature says that the easy one will get done and
>the harder one will NEVER get done in many areas...
Here is a critic flaw in the APRS network. There is no reason the software
in the digi can't be updated remotely. Ok it might take a little longer
then 1 minute to FTP a new executable up at 1200 baud during the wee hours
of the morning. The technology to do this is long established in amateur
packet realms.
Not only would a "smart digi" be smarter about the packets it handles, it
would be upgradeable where it sits. Seems to me we should at least be
working towards systems like this and not say it's impossible and refuse to
consider it.
I continue to believe the Pacific Northwest has a good shot at having a
core of smart digi's working together by the end of the year.
>Bob
Bill - WA7NWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:16:56 -0500
X-Message-Number: 90
>>>Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org> 3/4/04 7:29:33 PM >>>
>There is not now, and likely never will be, a single path
>that works in all areas. I think acceptable local networking
>behavior need to be defined locally, not on a world-wide basis.
That's the beauty of this proposal. The truncation and marking of the path
as potentially damaging is only done at the local IGate and only those
packets and it only affects the packets from that one IGate according to
the local rule for that area.
That's why I jumped on this idea as a good one, because it is easily
implemented, completey LOCAL in scope and completely LOCAL in determination
of what is good or bad in that area.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:20:03 -0500
X-Message-Number: 91
>>>Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org> 3/4/04 7:38:56 PM >>>
>As I say, MAYBE there would be justification if the proposed
>measure actually fixed the problem, but it does not, the offenders
>will still be transmitting and causing the same amount of QRM.
>This proposal is based on "punishing" them by
>booting them off the APRS IS, hoping they will notice, and adjust
there
>behavior. Will probably work for some, but certainly not for all.
Nothing will ever work for all. But this simple approach will work for a
majority and anything that is that productive is worth trying...
>Find a solution that factually fixes the problem, and does not
>cause innocent people to suffer, even if it is harder to implement.
We've been talking about that for 10 years and still no progress. Time to
try something different... Thus, this new neat idea...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:41:05 -0500
X-Message-Number: 92
On 3/4/04 at 8:00 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>But looking at the recent survey, the great majority
>of everyone is using UIview. THus one author can
>fix 70% of the problem... with a few lines of code...
You said he wouldn't even place a warning dialog to help, and now you
expect him to put in a filter which will alienate half of his European
users?
Look Bob, you are using findU as a very broad, blunt club to face a focal
problem. For every one person that is a problem, you are goping to hurt a
dozen that are not problems. Worse, this all points back to me. I do not
like being used this way.
If you really want it, you need to accept my offer to be point man on this,
use it in very focused strokes aat people that are really causing problems,
and take the heat for doing so yourself.
You want something that is really "overnight"? I'll have this up in 1 hour
if you accept...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:45:58 -0500
X-Message-Number: 93
On 3/4/04 at 8:09 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>>>>Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org> 3/4/04 5:51:33 PM >>>
>>Here is a good example of why arbitrary rules of maximum
>>digi paths just won't work, this was the second station I
>>looked at with WIDE4 in the packets
>>
>>http://findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=N7NAT
>>
>>If you look at this data, almost all of it required 3 or 4 hops
>
>A prefectly VALID path in his area, and presumably then
>the IGate in his area would NOT have the restriction to
>2 hops. The only IGates that would impact that user
>would be IGates in areas where 4-4 is NOT acceptible.
>And the IGATES know and understand this. Hence, this
>user would not be impacted at all..
How do you know? Perhaps this IGate is in a crowded city, and there are
local users he wants to shut out. Even if this IGate doen't implement it,
do you see you need everyone on board? Otherwise, the incentive is for the
guy with the long paths to lengthen it, so he will reach one of these open
IGates!
>>If you implement this proposal of trashing everything
>>longer than 2-2, this person cannot have his data on
>>the internet.
>
>The idea to limit to 2-2 or 3-3, or 4-4 is a LOCAL IGate
>thing. It doesnt apply in areas where such restrictinos
>are not needed.
But these situations often occur in border areas. For example, the Keys
data makes it to the internet in Miami, and area where such restrictions
might be implemented.
>>Please, this is just a bad idea...you cannot enforce an
>>arbitrary path on all APRS local area networks.
>
>Two things missing in that statement:
>
>1) It is not arbitrary, it is determined by the LOCAL IGate sysop
Then it is doomed to failure.
>2) It does not apply to "all" networks, only one local network
> one at a time, depending on LOCAL needs...
So the incentive for a bad boy in one of these local areas is to INCREASE
his path to reach an area without the restriction.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:47:54 -0500
X-Message-Number: 94
What happens when the offender puts up an I-Gate and allows those paths?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:49:25 -0500
X-Message-Number: 95
On 3/4/04 at 8:16 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>That's why I jumped on this idea as a good one, because it is
>easily implemented, completey LOCAL in scope and completely
>LOCAL in determination of what is good or bad in that area.
If each network were self-contained, this is true enough. However networks
abut one another, so a guy could be in one network, and be causing a
problem in another, or in a network causing a problem, but have a path long
enough to reach a network where he is not causing a problem.
I simply do not like findU being used to beat people over the head. I want
to to be in the best amateur tradition, open to all. If it is to be used
otherwise, it needs to be done with precision and with the person weilding
the power to take the heat...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
