[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: [amsat-bb] Re: [aprssig] BBS's versus DIGIPEATERS in space

MIR DOWNLINK usage over Europe:
> > BBS:   330 packets to transfer 27 useful lines of text = 8%   effeciency
> > CNCT:   17 packets to transfer  1 useful line  of text = 6%   effeciency
> > UI:      2 packets to transfer  2 useful lines of text = 100% effeciency

Tim Salo responded:
> I believe your analysis and conclusions are, at best, incomplete.
> First, [we need to] migrate from AX.25 to the IP protocol suite,
> ... to move beyond the dumb terminal paradigm of ASCII text...
> (and use more channel-efficient binary  encodings).

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that UI frames were for everyone or for
every application at all.  I only meant to show that the MIR downlink is
practically useless for EVERYONE as it is currently being used, including
those that need to use the BBS.  10 years ago we learned that and went to
the pacsat protocol for store-and-forward on most new satelites.

My proposal for a number of UI digipeaters in space is not to displace any
such systems, but only to make a more fun channel where LOTS of people can
play on every pass and just have fun (and no one can HOG it).  This might
get most of the ego-connect-forever stations off the BBS channels and
allow those that need to use the BBS store-and-forward systems to use them
with less congestion.

I agree with you about effecient protocols.  Thats why I designed the
Mic-E format used by the Kenwood HT to combine a stations'
Packet is only 0.3 seconds long even at 1200 baud!

de Wb4APR

Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org