[OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting +confusion....

[Dion Bramich]

My situation is just that, I'm in the NW of the state. To get to the other

end, SE, I need 3 hops.  When the inversion is on, 3 hops will probably  
get me into NSW also, but I dont want/need to be seen there.  With TAS3-3,

I can flood Tasmania and the Victorians will see nothing of me on their  
digis via RF.  However without state or zone based routing, I havent got  
that ability..  It's just so simple, it cant not be a good thing!

I wouldnt like to see Tasmania 'zoned'.  We dont need to, theres not so  
many operators that it needs to be done, and with TAS3-3 we can be mobile

anywhere in the state and still be seen at home with no igating, ideally.

My view of the ultimate network in Tasmania is one in which everything  
happens on RF, no gating from internet to RF apart from a select few of  
interstate stations that locals are interested in here.  If ever local  
traffic did increase substantially, we could split the state in half with

NTASn-N and STASn-N, but I dont envisage any problems in the foreseeable  
future.

However, whats suitable for other larger states needs to be looked at.  I

guess were lucky in that we dont have a huge number of operators that need

to cooperate, changing stuff around is a breeze, and through doing that  
we've realised that state based routing is the go.

Dion.


On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:21:07 +1100, Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu>  
wrote:

>> > Zone or state based routing needs to be implemented,
>> > it should be mandatory.
>
> At the digis, yes, but to the users, it is just an option
> depending on their immediate comunications requirement.
>
> I think what he means is that it should be implemented at the
> digipeaters so that it is available for those who need it or
> want to participate in a "regional" net or event without QRMing
> surrounding areas too.  The classic example is someone who lives
> on the far edge of a "state" and wants to send his APRS traffic
> to a state net.  But it takes him 5 hops to hit all the
> participants in that state net.  ("Net" here is a special say,
> one-hour net for a stated purpose of limited duration and
> participants)...  If he used WIDE5-5, he would saturate all
> surrounding digipeaters in all directions out 5 hops hitting
> maybe 50 digis.  But if he used STATE5-5, then his packets would
> only go to the few digis in his state and no farther.
>
>> We are using it here, its excellent.  There
>> will be no near border confsuion, it'll solve problems.
>
> For border areas that want routine all direction operation, they
> simply continue to use WIDEn-N.  But the border folks have the
> added option of targeting a give direction too, which can only
> be seen as an advantage...
>
> Just 2 cents worth.
> Bob, WB4APR
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ozaprs mailing list
> Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
> http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Ozaprs mailing list
Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
http://aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://second.aprs.net.au/pipermail/ozaprs/attachments/20061103/9d4110d0/attachment.htm