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

Fri Nov 3 11:42:51 EST 2006

Hi Dion,

Eek, I made two mistakes!  I accidentally left "TAS-3" out (between "WA-3"
and "NT-3"), and of course "Arctic" should be "Antarctic".

Sorry about that...  I'm blaming insufficient caffeine levels, at this
stage...

Regards,

Chris
vk6kch

-----Original Message-----
From: ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au [mailto:ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au] On
Behalf Of Dion Bramich
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 8:36 AM
To: VK / ZL APRS Users
Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting
+confusion....

Thats a good idea, indeed.  They'd both function the same ofcourse, just  
that the first set has more consistency with it, therefore less  
confusion?  I could go along with that..

Dion.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:28:56 +1100, Chris Hill  
<chris.hill at crhtelnet.com.au> wrote:

> Hi Dion and all,
>
> Why not make the state-based zoning naming convention be based on the VK
> call areas?  In other words, there would be ten choices:
>
> VK0-3
> VK1-3
> VK2-3
> VK3-3
> VK4-3
> VK5-3
> VK6-3
> VK7-3
> VK8-3
> VK9-3
>
> (Of course, we wouldn't expect to see much use of VK0-3 and VK9-3!)
>
> The alternative is that we move away from "VK" call areas, and use state
> abbreviations, which would give us a mix of two and three letter
aliases:
>
> ARC-3
> ACT-3
> NSW-3
> VIC-3
> QLD-3
> SA-3
> WA-3
> NT-3
> ISL-3
>
> (Where "ARC" is short for Arctic Territories, and "ISL" is for the VK9  
> call
> areas).
>
> Personally, I prefer the use of the first set of ten options...  any
> comments?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Chris
> vk6kch
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au [mailto:ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au] On
> Behalf Of Dion Bramich
> Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 7:45 AM
> To: bruninga at usna.edu; VK / ZL APRS Users
> Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] European v USnewparadigmand pathlimiting
> +confusion....
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
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/20061103/4f30c4b1/attachment.htm 