On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Scott Miller<[email protected]> wrote:
> You're right, it shouldn't be a big code change. I've been holding off > on it because there seems to be some disagreement on how hop limiting in > particular should work - dropping excessive paths completely, counting > already-used hops against the limit, or (like it does now) just capping > the remaining hops. And then there's the exception of the WIDE1-1 behavior. I know my opinion on the matter. If it doesn't fit in the rules, dump it. If you have a HOPLIMIT of 3, there are only 6 valid paths that should be acted upon. Anything other than that should be ignored. Counting hops used in malformed paths only encourages the continued use of malformed paths, and acting upon N values below the limit even when the packet was started with a higher limit allows abusive paths. You have to make people do it right, or they don't learn. I used to be on the other side of the fence, but after nearly 5 years of people not making the change, I'm at my limit. > What I'd really like to see is a flowchart, or maybe even just a matrix, > showing what the behavior should be. Something that everyone can look > at and see what the implications are for each case, and that can serve > as an implementation guide when everyone's had a chance to look at it. That could be done, and the wiki would be a place to post it... Now I have to figure how to flowchart or matrix it to make sense. That's one of the big problems in APRS, is that the digipeating rules have never been laid out properly. People discuss the rules, yet they implement them differently across the continent. Actually now with the New n-N paradigm, I think it's a little more homogenous. James VE6SRV
