[Xastir] Change to RELAY digipeat function

[Gerry Creager N5JXS]

The issue will be to constrain the design to allow continued operation 
for existing base/mobile hardware with a change only in the path used. 
I still think that can be done.  The appliance operators see a benefit, 
we get to build networks.

And, then again, it might be a lost cause.  If so, APRS could well go 
the same path of Packet in general, when BBS's became irrelevant, and 
essentially dropped off the face of the earth.

I think it's gonna be a hardware and software effort. I think it's going 
to be incumbent on the designers to make it backward compatible, but 
have hooks toward a more forward-thinking network interface.  And I 
think at some point, if the hardware and software are built right, it 
will have to cut over from AX.25 to something else (IPv6/TCP?) to allow 
better, more adaptive network functionality.

gerry

Jeff Barlow wrote:
> Gerry Creager N5JXS <gerry.creager at tamu.edu>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>We could, if real action's going on, consider something like HamComm, 
>>DCC and Dayton, and announce the following HamComm?
> 
> 
> But would anyone care? 
> 
> I mean, yes I'm sure you could round up some folks (that doesn't
> mean I'm volunteering) who could design something better than the
> current APRS. That's the easy part. Hell, we could even design
> hardware and software to make it all work. (Curt: remember
> AVRSCUD?) 
> 
> This is the sort of thing that got me involved in ham radio in
> the first place. (back in '63) I always liked building radios
> much more than talking on the air. Nowadays, it seems like most
> hams can't even solder. (Gee, do I sound like a grouchy OM, or
> what?)
> 
> All those appliance operators with all those Kenwoods have no way
> to switch to a new protocol and I doubt most of them care to get
> their hands dirty. I fear the toughest part of the problem is
> political in nature, rather than technical. Personally, I haven't
> the patience for that.
>