RFC: OpenGGSN split/rename

Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.org
Thu Aug 31 11:56:46 UTC 2017

Hi Max,

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:25:48PM +0200, Max wrote:
> With the ongoing split of OpenBSC into per-project repository, I wonder if we could
> do the same to OpenGGSN and split libgtp into separate repository?

Interesting proposal, I don't really have an existing opionion on it.

> * would simplify docs for newcomers (it's not obvious that openggsn have to be built
> ahead of OsmoSGSN because of libgtp)

Not so sure if that would really simplify it.  What would be a good idea is
an explicit --{enable-disable}-gtp for old openbsc.git and an unconditional dependency
from the new osmo-sgsn.git repository to avoid the "silently built without SGSN support"

The configure script could also state that 'libgtp is missing... install it from openggsn'
or the like.

There are considerable infrastructural changes for libgtp pending:
* the list/hashtable of PDP contexts / TEIDs is still global, and not per GSN
* the outer (transport) layer is still IPv4 only
* the kernel GTP-U support should become part of libgtp, not specific to OpenGGSN

There is currently nobody funding related work or otherwise contributing to it, so
this is just a wishlist without any clear target date for implementation.

> * simplify release process (we can release libgtp independently of OpenGGSN, makes it
> easier to automate too)

I'm not sure if that's a simplification, though?

> While at it and considering recent IPv6 support (and related config changes) it might
> be also good idea to rename it to OsmoGGSN (and libosmo-gtp?) to clearly mark the
> breaking point.

The osmo-sgsn rename is something I've been pondering in the laforge/osmo-sgsn
branch where the VTY is introduced.  I've almost decided against it meanwhile,
given that > 90% of the code still is OpenGGSN code, and credit belongs to the
creators of that and not to Osmocom.

Also, from an User point-of-view, it will be a different program. All recipes, manuals,
wiki pages, etc. will need updates.  But then, they will need updates due to the
vty / config file changes anyway, so it might actually be better to have a new
name since it "feels" completely different with VTY and related configuration than
the old OpenGGSN.

So in summary:
* libgtp split: I'm not entirely sure if at all.  If, then we should postpone
  the first release of that library until changes have been made.
* rename: I'm more in favor again, but my opinion seems to change ever week ;)

What do others think?
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org>           http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

More information about the osmocom-net-gprs mailing list