[Xastir] Change to RELAY digipeat function

[David Dobbins]

#2, but proceed with caution after comprehensive testing and
re-testing, to make sure we're not fooling ourselves.

David

On Apr 8, 2005 9:15 PM, James Ewen <jewen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > <opinion>
> > Most of this is not going to relieve packet congestion on metro-digi
> > networks.
> 
> Is this opinion based on an in-depth examination of the current
> implementation concept, or simply conjecture?
> 
> > It's gonna look like it for a period of time until the folks who don't
> > follow the APRS sig catch up/catch on, and then the congestion will
> > return.  The transient interlude of inadequate user upgrades will provide
> > the appearance of success.  The short memory cycles associated with most
> > hams will preclude recollection of the previous congestion and the
> > implication will be that things were better for a while, but the
> > population's growing.
> 
> While it is true that there would be a short term drop in traffic due to
> people running no longer supported paths, the latest implementation scenario
> will reduce the congestion if implemented properly.
> 
> > At some point, physics will have to intrude on conjecture in the
> > application of RF networking.
> 
> As always, there is a finite limit on the amount of traffic that can be
> handled on a given channel.
> 
> > This is a band-aid approach to an arterial laceration.
> > </opinion>
> 
> So what's the solution, wait until the patient bleeds out? No more blood in
> the body, no more bleeding!
> 
> The powers that be back on the east coast are currently looking at ways to
> make the best use of the current hardware that is available and in use. A
> lot of what they are suggesting are things that the NWAPRS group figured out
> and implemented quite a while ago. The suggestions being floated around now
> are simply slightly different ways of implementing the same concepts. There
> are a couple concepts that are new as well, since they are being proposed on
> an international basis. These types of changes had they been implemented
> only by the NWAPRS group would have fractionalized the APRS network.
> 
> As it is right now, the chances of fractionalizing the APRS network are
> high, as many people do not take the time to examine the proposed changes,
> and understand the rationale behind them. Rather than taking that time, they
> usually simply say "It's not going to work/make a difference, I'm not going
> to change."
> 
> There are really about 3 ways we can go:
> 
> 1) Keep the status quo, and live with congestion and near zero throughput in
> high traffic areas.
> 2) Implement the new changes, and try to optimize the current hardware (both
> digis and trackers)
> 3) Give up and throw it all in the garbage.
> 
> Which way do you want to go?
> 
> James
> VE6SRV
> 
> 


-- 
David Dobbins
Medical Lake, WA