[Xastir] UDP frames

[Wes Johnston]

In as far as I know, bob doesn't want an ack from everyone.... only
messages(nothing do to with the transport layer), and if they are not ack'ed,
then the APRS client would initiate another packet.  Broadcast with TCP would
be a nightmare with potentially 254 ack's and 254packets / aprs packet on the
subnet.

UDP has the same function as UI frames, and bob b lives with collisions on UI
frames all the time.

wes
--



Quoting Gerry Creager n5jxs <gerry.creager at tamu.edu>:

> The conventional wisdom on the APRS list is that UDP is evil, because
> Bob wants an ack from everyone.  Every time.  Never mind that APRS uses
> UI data to work.
>
> Steve D. has supported him in the past.  I'm still working on him, but
> not real actively.
>
> I expect the next generation of the IS will look more like multicast
> than connected unicast, but that's my opinion.
>
> Would it work?  Sure.  Would it be as "reliable" as the connected
> version?  I suspect that statistically, it would be, but the occasional
> lost packet would be seized on a failure.
>
> gerry
>
> Wes Johnston wrote:
> > This is probably a silly question... but some of my best ideas start out
> > silly....
> >
> > There was talk on the APRS sig last week about hooking up an 802.11b card
> to an
> > amp, and transmitting UDP frames to the local subnet broadcast address.
> Can we
> > do that with xastir?  Can we rx UDP frames with xastir? I know scott miller
> was
> > talking about using network broadcast of UDP for open trac.... so could it
> be
> > implemented now?
> >
> > wes
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xastir mailing list
> > Xastir at xastir.org
> > https://lists.xastir.org/mailman/listinfo/xastir
> >
>
> --
> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
> Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020
> FAX:  979.847.8578 Pager:  979.228.0173
> Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
>