Attention is currently required from: laforge, pespin.
fixeria has posted comments on this change. (
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796?usp=email )
Change subject: Implement M3UA-over-TCP (in addition to SCTP)
......................................................................
Patch Set 1:
(6 comments)
Patchset:
PS1:
I wonder whether we really want to add/maintain a
"OSMO_SS7_ASP_PROT_M3UA_TCP" type ...
I am open for suggestions. I see nothing wrong with adding a new `OSMO_SS7_ASP_PROT_*`
entry, because it's more linear and comfortable to use than additionally having to
check for some boolean flag across the structure(s). This also let's the VTY users to
select M3UA-over-TCP using the existing VTY command(s). Adding a boolean flag means adding
more VTY commands (not just one) for selecting the transport, which would only apply to
`OSMO_SS7_ASP_PROT_M3UA`.
File src/osmo_ss7_vty.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796/comment/5a4be849_33f8b54e
PS1, Line 62: "MTP3 User Adaptation (SCTP)\n" \
As mentioned in earlier patches, you can remove the
"SCTP" stuff. […]
IMO, it does not hurt to clarify in command
documentation which option of the two with similar names is using which transport.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796/comment/abfcda5a_2803213a
PS1, Line 1994: "Display all M3UA (SCTP and TCP) ASs\n"
drop "SCTP and TCP".
Likewise here, I
wanted to make it clear that all M3UA entries are shown, not only those using SCTP as the
transport. Because in other commands `m3ua` means M3UA-over-SCTP, and it may be confusing
to those using SCTP-over-TCP.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796/comment/c8a1948c_499a1666
PS1, Line 2013: if (filter && !strcmp(filter, "m3ua")) {
sounds like this can be moved into a "bool
only_m3ua" out of the loop. […]
Sounds like it, but should I really spend more
time optimizing this code path?
File src/osmo_ss7_xua_srv.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796/comment/c9a5ee4c_9ed5b640
PS1, Line 168: if (ss7_asp_proto_to_ip_proto(asp->cfg.proto) == IPPROTO_SCTP) {
you wanna name this probably
"ss7_asp_proto_to_ipproto" (see "ipproto" instead of
"ip_proto")
Why would I name something that already exists? So you suggest
to rename existing API? Sounds like a purely cosmetic change to me, which is not directly
related to this patch.
File src/xua_rkm.c:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796/comment/cb772cc9_058a008f
PS1, Line 240: M3UA-over-SCTP or M3UA-over-TCP? Can we use asp->cfg.proto maybe?
I'd keep the usual one to mean sctp, and probably
add something else for tcp.
The question here is not whether we leave
`OSMO_SS7_ASP_PROT_*` unchanged and add a boolean flag. It's a more fundamental
question why are we hard-coding M3UA here, while there can also be XUA and IPA. I am not
familiar with the code base, so I am asking for clarification. I can only guess that
dynamic RKM allow is only allowed for M3UA?
--
To view, visit
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmo-sccp/+/35796?usp=email
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: libosmo-sccp
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I8c76d271472befacbeb998a93bbdc9e8660d9b5d
Gerrit-Change-Number: 35796
Gerrit-PatchSet: 1
Gerrit-Owner: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder
Gerrit-Reviewer: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Attention: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org>
Gerrit-Attention: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2024 10:28:44 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: fixeria <vyanitskiy(a)sysmocom.de>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment