Attention is currently required from: laforge, pespin.

View Change

3 comments:

• File include/osmocom/hnbgw/hnbgw.h:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 193: /* Return true when the user configured GTP mapping to be enabled, by configuring a PFCP link to a UPF.

    I we should not allow running osmo-hnbgw without proxying GTP through it (in detail, through its ass […]

    i disagree, osmo-hnbgw has so far always run without proxying/mapping GTP. we are adding a new feature to use a UPF, and should still allow osmo-hnbgw to run the same way it always did. Firstly to allow users to keep their current installations working, secondly it also makes sense in lab or non-complex sites to just pass GTP through without a UPF.

    The same is true for RTP proxying, next time i test 3G with a lab setup i will be annoyed that the hnbgw *requires* an MGW, and will rather submit a patch to make MGW optional and allow running as it did before RTP proxying

• File include/osmocom/hnbgw/hnbgw.h:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 193: static inline bool hnb_gw_is_gtp_mapping_enabled(const struct hnb_gw *gw)

    can you document this function? what does gtp_mapping mean exactly?

    "mapping" == "proxying" ... should we decide on one of those terms?

• File src/osmo-hnbgw/hnbgw.c:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 230: LOGP(DHNBAP, LOGL_INFO, "deallocating UE context: id 0x%x, imsi %s, tmsi 0x%x\n",

    AFAICT this was not resolved.

    sorry i was distracted by a visitor and lost track

To view, visit change 28816. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.