Change in osmo-mgw[master]: mgcp_client: make domain part of endpoint configurable

This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.

A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/gerrit-log@lists.osmocom.org/.

Neels Hofmeyr gerrit-no-reply at lists.osmocom.org
Thu Jan 3 01:20:31 UTC 2019


Neels Hofmeyr has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/12357 )

Change subject: mgcp_client: make domain part of endpoint configurable
......................................................................


Patch Set 4:

(3 comments)

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/12357/3//COMMIT_MSG
Commit Message:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/12357/3//COMMIT_MSG@20
PS3, Line 20: Rationale: reading pcaps becomes so much easier when each of osmo-bsc and
            : osmo-msc address their MGW with differing domain names. Otherwise, both will
            : have a '0 at mgw' endpoint and it gets really confusing.
> How cold both use the same endpoint?  The endpoint names (local part in front of @) is allocated by  […]
In a scenario where both osmo-msc and osmo-bsc use the same osmo-mgw, indeed each new endpoint will get a new number. But when you have one osmo-mgw each, then both osmo-mgw instances independently create endpoints, so for the first call occuring, both actually create a '0 at mgw' and wireshark shows identically named endpoints on separate osmo-mgw instances. Then there is the need to also look at the source/dest address and/or port numbers to figure out what is going on.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/12357/3/include/osmocom/mgcp_client/mgcp_client.h
File include/osmocom/mgcp_client/mgcp_client.h:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/12357/3/include/osmocom/mgcp_client/mgcp_client.h@28
PS3, Line 28: MG
> why 64? Is there some kind of maximum DNS domain name length we should use?
I'm not sure at all. In fact I was just picking something at random and not bothering with details, just to quickly use this at 35c3. Same with other parts of this patch. I'm glad code review worked nicely here :)

Found MGCP_ENDPOINT_MAXLEN, though that would include the "123@" part, it is a good rough choice I guess.


https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/12357/3/src/libosmo-mgcp-client/mgcp_client.c
File src/libosmo-mgcp-client/mgcp_client.c:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/12357/3/src/libosmo-mgcp-client/mgcp_client.c@830
PS3, Line 830: 
> Oh, wow, this breaks Gerrit's syntax highlighting :D
yeah, I'm also getting C comment warnings when trying to write 'rtpbridge/*@foo' in a comment :P



-- 
To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/12357
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings

Gerrit-Project: osmo-mgw
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ia662016f29dd8727d9c4626d726729641e21e1f8
Gerrit-Change-Number: 12357
Gerrit-PatchSet: 4
Gerrit-Owner: Neels Hofmeyr <nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder (1000002)
Gerrit-Reviewer: Max <msuraev at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Neels Hofmeyr <nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-CC: Stefan Sperling <stsp at stsp.name>
Gerrit-CC: Vadim Yanitskiy <axilirator at gmail.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 01:20:31 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-HasLabels: No
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/gerrit-log/attachments/20190103/bc688820/attachment.htm>


More information about the gerrit-log mailing list