Replies: 1 comment
-
SummaryThis proposal introduces an optional enhancement to the existing Meshtastic node architecture via a new node role: The goal is to provide a low-overhead mechanism for improving packet delivery in targeted scenarios—such as between isolated mobile clients and fixed base nodes—without requiring full REPEATER or ROUTER functionality. This can help facilitate pseudo-trunking or semi-backbone behavior while maintaining mesh efficiency. 🔧 How It Works
✅ Benefits
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I have a suggestion for a new node type that might help a little with routing. I have looked for similar threads, but happy to have any I have missed pointed out to me. There may be reasons this idea won't work, I'm happy to hear them. The details below are just a suggestion, and I'm happy to work with any developers out there to test code if they are willing to help make it happen.
Why? To provide a means of psudo-trunking without flooding the mesh with additional ROUTERs or REPEATERs so that there's a mid-tier trunking solution. It could also encourage people to create quicker trunks to minimise hops between locations whilst still allowing the mesh to work as normal. Users could set up nodes to provide themselves a prefered route between nodes to get packets into harder to reach areas.
Issues? Possibly could cause issues with current mesh setups with non-CLIENT_PREFERRED aware nodes rebroadcasting packets that might affect he dynamics of the current mesh. I'm starting this thread to have these discussions amongst a group of people who understand the mesh dynamics better than me. ;) Hoping people will reason through things rather than just shut the conversation down, or at least explain what I'm missing.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions