[Feature Request] Router Silence List for Router and Router_Late

[Ryu945]

Router and Router_Late are used for well placed nodes that have good coverage so your want the to always rebroadcast but they will likely see another node rebroadcast. When there is only one Router/Router_Late performing a function then it works out but as a network gets more Router/Router_Late, it can lead to redundant Router/Router_Late. Both Router/Router_Late are still valuable for coverage depending on how the signal is received in any given situation but there doesn't need to be a duplicate broadcast in some areas.

A Router Silence List is a list of all the nodes whose rebroadcast of a message are allowed to silence a Router/Router_Late. For example, if you have two Router_Late on one side of the mountain, they can put each other on the Router Silence List. SNR will determine who rebroadcast first. When one rebroadcast, the other doesn't rebroadcast. Since the further away from the source will rebroadcast first then the more ideal Router_Late can rebroadcast. If one Router_Late happens to not see a signal then the other will cover for it.

In situations in which one Router is clearly superior to the other, you can set one as Router and the other as Router_Late. Router_Late would add the Router to the Router Silence List. As long as that Router rebroadcast, the Router_Late will remain silent. If the Router fails to rebroadcast then Router_Late node will take over.

This should give those that setup Routers a way of doing logic control for when to rebroadcast and when to not rebroadcast. It will also reduce the bandwidth usage from redundant Router/Router_Late broadcasting.

A potential add-on to this idea since it couldn't be its own idea, put a delay option that both Router/Router_Late can use. It will limit Router/Router_Late to rebroadcast only in the second half of their respective rebroadcast window. It is still SNR based but the rebroadcast range becomes limited to the second half of the window.

This will allow setups where you can let one Router_Late have rebroadcast superiority over another Router_Late. You can also have one Router have rebroadcast superiority over another Router. This will give more options to use the Router Silence List. With this, you be able to fine tune local networks.

edit:

Besides the potential land routing uses, it has two non land routing uses.

1. It allows you to create high availability clusters. You can get that extra 0.0001% uptime. It is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. There is no bandwidth penalty to doing this since nodes in the same cluster can add each other to their own list and silence each other within a cluster.

2. It provides a backup when the main router has a duty cycle limitation imposed by the law.

[Ryu945]

Thoughts?

[Ryu945]

Besides the potential land routing uses, it has two non land routing uses.

1. It allows you to create high availability clusters. You can get that extra 0.0001% uptime. It is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. There is no bandwidth penalty to doing this since nodes in the same cluster can add each other to their own list and silence each other within a cluster.

2. It provides a backup when the main router has a duty cycle limitation imposed by the law.

[korbinianbauer]

I can't really think of a scenario where you would want two Routers, but only one of them sending, except for the high availability thing.

Maybe you could provide a drawing?

I think we should be really careful with adding such micro-management options that add complexity and reduce the transparency of the behavior of nodes to patch shortcomings of the basic behavior, and rather improve the basic behavior per default.

[Ryu945]

One thought that crossed my mind that I think would be easier to understand. What if you have a long valley with with different central hubs along the long valley. Practically, the routers are going to get setup at the central hubs. Not between the central hubs. If someone from central hub A sends a message, they don't need Router A rebroadcasting it. They want Router B rebroadcasting it. Client A is already positioned to send the message in the other direction. If someone in central hub B sends a message, they don't want Router B rebroadcasting it. They want Router A rebroadcasting it. Client B is already positioned to send it in the opposite direction.

I need to find a website that shows real world router locations with the topography. I could show how this idea could optimize each local region.