Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [tracker2] NSR support?

Expand Messages
  • Curt, WE7U
    ... Yes. If we could say get us 10 miles in all directions , that would work great. If we could do that and keep the path short (or nonexistent), that would
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 29, 2006
      On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 scott@... wrote:

      > That'll work with the existing preemption flag.
      >
      > As for using the destination address for routing, I'd rather see the routing
      > specifier indicate the intent of the routing, and not the mechanics. Don't
      > say that you want to go two hops - say that you want to get to the nearest
      > IGate, or to cover a 100-mile radius.

      Yes. If we could say "get us 10 miles in all directions", that
      would work great. If we could do that and keep the path short (or
      nonexistent), that would be even better.


      > A practical problem with the scheme is that you can't indicate what's been
      > done to the packet without changing the destination and screwing up dupe
      > checking.

      Ah yes. Unless dupe-checking ignored the destination field if in
      that special mode.


      > Unless you put trace information in the digipeater path maybe...

      Yea, but that makes the path longer again. I'm much more interested
      in having more packets getting there than what path they took to do
      it.

      --
      Curt, WE7U. APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
      "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
      "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
      "The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.