| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 03.04.03 12:07l 235 Lines 9405 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1097-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 28, 3/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<IK6PYS<W4JAX<KD4GCA<N2BQF<
VK3TE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030402/0951Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:63105 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1097-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:49:05 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 20
I think you where right, 1983 was when I first got interested in packet but
couldn't afford my own TNC until 1985. In 1983 some of the guys in town
still have VADCG (Vancover) Vancover boards. They may have dated from
1980-81
So where can I get my firmware upgrade so I can run APRS on the Vancover
board?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:14:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 21
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>WRONG. UI frames (packets) where the parse and parcel of the TCP/IP (NOS)
And that represented less than 1% of packet activity at the time...
>Additionally, it had long been common practice (at least since 1985 when I
>first got on) to use UI frames to hold packet roundtables via the big digi in
>the area.
Yes, by all means. But that is not what I said. What I said was "by
1992" UI digipeating was... In other words, we BEGAN in 1980 with
digipeating and UI, but by 1992, it was totally abandoned by 99% of all
packet operators and was even DISABLED in almost all networks because it
is not efficient for CONNECTED packet. Digipeating was verboten...
>>3) DIGIPEATING was considered to be "very bad", "obsolete" and a very
>>innefficient use of packet radio.
>
>And it still is very inefficent use of channel resources. The laws of physics
>have not changed because APRS is popular.
That is a biased distortion and obfuscation so that you can get your usual
dig in to APRS. There is nothing that is inefficient about digipeating in
an APRS UI network. You are talking about connected one-to-one packet
networks where Digipeating is inefficient. It is not inneffieicent if the
network is designed to distribute a single packet of data to EVEYONE on
the channel (ala APRS).
>>>4) DIGIPEATING was prohibited on all packet networks. Digipeating
>>was disabled by defualt in ALL Packet nodes.
>
>Not in any of the places I ever visited in the Midwest and South.
Which country? In 1992, 99% of every NETROM, KA-NODE, THENET and SEDAN
network had DIGIPEATING disabled and all guidance told sysops to disable
it. You are confusing 1985 with 1992...
>Digipeating was enabled, it was just alternate modes provided more
>reliable connectivity for end to end QSO'S. In the late 90's I could set
>up a end to end Netrom connection from Detroit to New York, all on VHF
>networks.
Yes, but that is NOT DIGPIEATING. That was node enabled link-by-link
acknowledged layer 4 networking. Totally different from digipeating...it
WAS the most efficient mode available at the time to go multiple hops.
But that has nothing to do with digipeating.. The term "digipeating" when
I use it means un-connectged, un-acknowledged, digipeating.
>>Further, (and still sometimes today) APRS, UI packets were condemned,
>>belittled, rejected, and ignored by "conventional" packet operators.
>>So we went off on our own frequency...
>
>No one (that I know of) has a issue with a UI packet. The fact that APRS
>was so inefficent (flood routing with multiple frames with the same
>information)
And so what is your "better" way to deliver a single packet to 250 users
at once over hundreds of square miles in real time?
>This is nothing unique to APRS. And before you get your shorts in
>a knot, I am not critizing APRS. I know why you made the decisions you
>did. I just don't think they need to be sugar coated or people mislead
>on a ongoing basis.
It is your distortion of tidbits and snipets of fact into broad brush
criticisim of every facet that anyone raises on this sig that is
missleading people on an ongoing basis...
>Bottom line, the APRS spec, which you largely authored, calls out a
>specific PID as part of the protocol. If you don't like this, rewrite
>the spec, not history.
Geeze, where is this attack coming from? Makes no sense. Yes, APRS calls
out a specific PID. Makes sense to me.. and the PID is the default in
every TNC. If it hadn't, then everyone's TNC would not have worked
with it. The fact that it is the default also then means you hear
everything else on channel using those same common TNC's. So
what's your point?
>It is not unreasonable for people to depend on this spec nor is it
>proper for you to knowingly attempt to rewrite history to divert the
>focus. Your accomplishments are great and there is no reason to so
>grossly mislead people regarding the history of packet radio.
What?
There is nothing in my original statements (prior to yoru attempted
distortions) that re-writes history in any way. It is the way it was in
the general packet network that covered most of the country in 1992. Not
1980, not 1985, or any other time or any other specialized and minor
networks... I stand by my original (undistored) post.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:20:12 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 22
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>I think you where right... In 1983 some of the guys in town still
>have VADCG (Vancover) Vancover boards. They may have dated from 1980-81
>
>So where can I get my firmware upgrade so I can run APRS on the Vancover
>board?
Actually, I think a stock Vancouver board would work as is. It booted up
in monitor mode and that is all that APRS needs... As you noted before,
when we first started in 1980, UI digipeating was how it all began.
My point was that Connected packet over took it and because soon there
were no live operators, and everything was pt-to-pt uploading and
downloading of mail. To make that the most efficient, most SYSOPS turned
off digipeating to focus the network on end-to-end links only. THus,
APRS had to put up its own digipeaters on a new frequency to be able to
grow.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Macom GPS antenna
From: Glenn Little <glennlittle@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:23:56 -0500
X-Message-Number: 23
Can anyone verify that MACOM 3396-8010-0021 is in fact a GPS antenna? Does
anyone have the specs on this antenna?
Thanks
73
Glenn
WB4UIV
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Little QCWA LM 28417
Amateur Callsign: WB4UIV wb4uiv@amsat.org AMSAT LM 2178
QTH: Goose Creek, SC USA (EM92xx) EC Berkeley County ARRL TAPR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:47:11 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 24
AX.25 was never ported over to the Vancouver board and the address field was
limited to 256 stations.
Quoting Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>:
>Actually, I think a stock Vancouver board would work as is. It booted
>up
>in monitor mode and that is all that APRS needs...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Digipeating and fun with PIDs
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:02:50 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 25
Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> wrote:
WKA wrote:
>>WRONG. UI frames (packets) where the parse and parcel of the TCP/IP (NOS)
>And that represented less than 1% of packet activity at the time...
Ahhhh, the shake, rattle and switch. It would be enlightening to look at what
you stated, and I was responding to:
" 1) BEACONs (UI packets) were "prohibited" on all packet networks."
1% is not prohibited. Further, I gave numerous other examples of legal day
to day beacons (UI packets) which you didn't even bother to acknowledge.
The point being, once again, you are trying to re-write history to favor
APRS. What I don't understand is, why?!? APRS can stand on its own two
feet, as can you, without the Huck Finn revisionism. I realize your
counting on most people not knowing any better, but a few of us do and we
where there.
BTW, in 1992 about 30%+ of all packet activity/transmissions in the Detroit
area were TCP/IP (UI packets). By that time, it was even beginning to
become mainstream in amateur packet radio. MSYS, a popular PBBS, even
supported it, so you didn't need to even run NOS (which most still where).
You mistake my desire for your to be historically accurate with an attack
on APRS. I would be the first to admit, the first popular uses of UI frames
failed where as APRS is here to stay. I just don't see the need to turn our
backs on history.
As to the rest of your comments, this appears to be going the way almost
every public exchange between us goes, so I'll sumarize the go-arounds
between us to speed things along.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Moderator steps in and shuts thread down.
>I stand by my original (undistored) post.
Your history lesson or your point about those earlier commenting on this
thread being armchair viewers?
-Jeff .-- -... ---.. .-- -.- .-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
