Charles,

Did some background reading, guess I've used the wrong terminology.
I've had a few networking classes but I'm no expert. The partially
meshed topology is definitely the way to go. But the issues of selling
the concept and handling funding and logistics that I mentioned are
still a factor in any large-scale network implementation. As other
posters have mentioned, we have the bandwidth available to get this
done but money is the major obstacle. I'm just glad this conversation
is happening here. The original poster hit a nerve and clearly there is
interest in moving digital amateur radio networking forward. I'm going
to look at what I can do within my club, using our facilities - some
kind of happy medium between setting up a network in my house and
covering 500 square miles. Gotta walk before you can run.

Matt, N3SOZ

Charles Brabham wrote:
The Star network topology has been tried with Packet. It was called
TexNet.

The TexNet network did something that no other large-scale ax25
packet
network ever did - It disappeared completely, leaving hardly any
trace
behind to show that it once existed.. From 100+ linked nodes to none
in just
a few years.

I suppose that would qualify TexNet as the worst disaster in the
history of
digital amateur radio. It's untimely demise was directly related to
the use
of the obsolete Star network topology. All the other large-scale
packet
networks used the same Partially-Meshed network topology that the
Internet
utilizes, and I notice that all of those are still around to this
day.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
Webmaster: HamPoll.Com http://www.hampoll.com
Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php