Vojtech Bubnik wrote: > With your ad-hoc approach you would either broadcast data to all nodes > in the network (APRS approach), or broadcast routing tables (FlexNet > approach) or broadcast request to connect (I don't know any such AX.25 > system). Would you be more specific about your approach? Into which > category it falls? >
Vojtech et al, Well, I suppose it should be the broadcasting routing tables approach. Actually, when an end-user station becomes active on the air, its internal "node" should broadcast only an empty routing table (or, maybe, a saved table from the "last known state" of its internal node). As soon as the "node" receives the routing table from the other station(s), it becomes populated with new routes and, accordingly to the new routes, redirects his end-user's data and (dis)connection requests (SABM's, DM's etc) to the best possible route etc ... > Flexnet was probably the best AX.25 system designed with working auto > router, but still it took some time before the routing tables were > updated after a station connected / disconnected. And it was using > dedicated links between nodes, so there was no hidden transmitter problem. > Ok, but doesn't every AX.25 system take some time before the routing tables were updated? The hidden transmitter problem might be an issue too, but at this stage of invention I did not think about, considering that an internal node incorporated within an AX.25 station would just add some more traffic (broadcast routing tables) - that might be usable in areas where are not 'official' nodes in use (rural areas or something like that, so every user can serve as a network node for the others). Misko YT7MPB
