- Unfortunately this is one of the "dead horse" topics that has been argued and debated for a couple decades with nil progress ;-) Really no different than the internet links vs no internet links arguments.
As some said, many folks play with these values without understanding their impact on their network and those around them. The problems really kick in when you link to folks that chose quality values WIDELY divergent from the defaults chosen by the software authors vs just making minor tweaks as needed.
I've even ran across folks that swear that raising the quality values made the link work better ;-)
You can usually tackle these problems by:
1. Using locked routes can help with your node list bloat.
2. Adjusting your MINQUAL values up slowly can help with how much "non-local" stuff you're broadcasting on RF.
3. You can also use an "upstream" node/hub to provide a buffer between your local network and retain wide connectivity as needed.
I've found a combination of the above takes care of most needs.
"Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/robustpacket/ HF Robust Packet Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hspacket/ High Speed Packet Group.
--- In BPQ32@yahoogroups.com, WS7I <ws7ik7tj@...> wrote:
> Just wondering as I slowly increase some access to my nodes why most
> people seem to have the same quality set for all of your applications.
> e.g. Node at 195, BBS also at 195, and Chat at 195, rms at 195.
> So this results in my node getting 4 links to you all at the same
> quality. Thus I send these along to nodes that I am connected to
> (some of which are on VHF RF) that has links to four of your nodes
> when there is really no need and in fact I don't think folks on my VHF
> partners really want to go to your chat or your bbs, when they have
> local bbs' that they can use.
> In fact that's why I have few people that I link with as for example
> one of my partners has 100's of nodes most of which are all over the
> world, so I actually reduce access to this so that at least the nodes
> in my list are local and reachable.
> Just curious, as this node is primarily just an ARES/RACES node with
> soon to be NTSD traffic.