I have some questions:
1) When I start bsc_hack bsc_init.c first establishes OML link and
initializes the bts then it establishes RSL link and bts starts
broadcasting. However, it takes so much time to start the bts. Instead of
this I want to do the following: it establishes OML link at the beginning
and only once, then when i want to start broadcasting it establishes just
the RSL link and bts will start faster since i don't have to wait for OML
link. What should be done for this?
2) If i send one or two word messages from telnet interface it is okay. But
if i send a longer message the phone could't receive the end of the message
correctly(last words may be incomplete). Did any one encounter with this
problem? What is wrong with me?
3) Could I send SMS in which extension of the sender is text not integer.
For example, i want to send an information SMS that this is a test network.
For this purpose i want to send an SMS from 'OpenBSC'. I set the extension
of the first subscriber in database as text and tried to send the SMS but
SMS wasn't delivered. What should i do?
4) Can i add SMS externally to SMS table of database?
Thanks.
Jason
Hi!
With the help of graphviz, I have written a small perl-based tool that
allows you to generate ladder diagrams. It can be found at
git://git.osmocom.org/gen_ladder.git
For your reference, I'm attaching a sample input and output file.
The bent/curved arrows are a result of graphviz trying to indicate
that the message is between e.g. MS and MSC and 'bypasses' BTS and BSC.
I'm still waiting for somebody with more graphviz skills to make this an
option.
Hope this is useful for some of you...
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Hi!
Collin Mulliner, Tobias Engel and myself have been meeting yesterday to
discuss a generic application interface for OpenBSC.
They are both doing security analysis and want to achieve a clean way
how an external application can get access to a more or less transparent
communication channel to the phone.
The purpose of this is to be able to send intentionally malformed
packets to the mobile phone GSM stack at various different levels within
the stack.
As of now, they have both hacked some custom code into openbsc that gets
them half way where they want to be - but not quite all the way.
The requirements can be summarized as follows:
1) Ability to establish a SDCCH or TCH channel by paging the phone
As of now, the 'silent call' feature from the VTY already does this.
2) Ability to send arbitrary layer3 protocol messages to the phone
Adding this is relatively easy (use rsl_sendmsg on the lchan from the
silent call)
3) Ability to receive responses from the phone, as well as error
conditions such as 'readio link failure'. We don't have a solution
for this yet, and we also have no clean way to identify what might
be a response from the phone to the external app, and what might
be a message from the phone to the normal network code in OpenBSC
4) Ability to selectively disable partial protocol handling in
OpenBSC. Let's say you want to play with the mobile phone call
control implementation. In this case, you want to make sure all CC
related messages go from/to the external program and not from the
regular OpenBSC network code.
So what I've been thinking of as a solution to the problem:
* store a bypass_flags bitmask related to the subscriber structure,
where we indicate values such as BYPASS_RR, BYPASS_MM, BYPASS_CC,
BYPASS_SAPI3.
* if we process an incoming message from the MS in gsm0408_rcvmsg(),
we check if a bypass flag matching the message is found. If yes,
forward the message to the external program
* if we want to send a message from our own protocol stack to the MS,
we check if a bypass flag matching the message is found. If yes,
we drop the message that we were about to send.
* any messages received from the application will be forwarded to the MS
The application interface protocol will likely have a close resemblance
to RSL RLL. We need to exchange the following primitives with the
application, like:
* ESTABLISH REQUEST -- app requests a channel be established to MS (by IMSI)
* ESTABLISH CONFIRM -- network confirms a channel has been established
* ESTABLISH INDICATION -- network tells app connection was made by MS
* [UNIT] DATA REQUEST -- app requests data to be sent to MS
* [UNIT] DATA INDICATION -- network indicates data was received from MS
* ERROR INDICATION -- network tells app something went wrong
* RELEASE REQUEST -- app asks network to release channel
* RELEASE CONFIRM -- net tells app that channel was released (as rqd)
* RELEASE INDICATION -- net tells app that channel was released (by MS)
The channel_number of RSL (indicating on-air timeslot) doesn't make much
sense in this context, of course.
The link_identifier on the other hand is great as it allows the app to
indicate SDCCH/FACCH or SACCH as well as the SAPI.
The actual RSL-like protocol would be encapsulated by UDP and available
on a socket of the MSC.
What do you think?
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Hi all!
This subject came to my attention again recently: Why not relicense
OpenBSC under AGPLv3?
Right now we are licensing under GPLv2+ (v2 or any later version). However,
if an operator was to make lots of private modifications and then operate
it on his own network, there would be no distribution and thus no need
for him to release his modified versions of the source code.
This may sound a bit strange to those who have been with the project
since its early days. But we are reaching production quality now, and
we already have the first number of production deployments of the software.
Companies like Netzing and On-waves have been FOSS-friendly and funding
parts of our development effort. They have no issues with the result being
Free Software again. However, there are definitely other companies out
there who are less fond of sharing...
So thus my idea is to put OpenBSC under AGPLv3. This way whoever uses
OpenBSC _in modified form_ to operate a communications network will
have to provide the source code to that modified form on a network
server at no charge.
The only controversial question to me is "your modified version must
prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer
network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive
the Corresponding Source".
1) does a gsm network count as computer network? i'd say yes.
2) is using a gsm network 'interacting with it remotely'? I'd also say yes
3) what does 'prominently offer' mean in the context of GSM? We don't want
the operator to spam their users with advertisement SMS just to know
that they can get the soruce code, after all.
Notwithstanding those open questions, such a network operator would always
have the option of simply sending back his changes for integration in the
official project - and thus he would no longer use a modified version which
then means there is no need for the prominent notice / download at all.
We can make this very clear in the project documentation, putting further
encouragement
The actual relicensing should be less problematic than I thought, since AGPLv3
is compatible with GPLv3.
So I could re-license all parts that I own copyright on (which should be
the majority of the code base anyway) under AGPLv3, while the former GPLv2+
components (like VTY code from zebra, or contributions by other people)
then become GPLv3-or-later.
Of course I would want to encourage all developers/contributors to also
follow the re-licensing. Particularly Holger Freyther, Dieter Spaar, Andreas
Eversberg, Jan Luebbe, Sylvain Munaut, Daniel Willmann, Stefan Schmidt.
So let's start with a poll:
a) Do you think re-licensing to AGPLv3 is a good idea?
b) If you have contributed, would you re-license your code under AGPLv3?
If we have some kind of concesus in the community, I would approach
On-waves whether they would want to do the same for their share of the
copyright. As their "modifications" are all part of OpenBSC git repository,
they would not be subject to any different conditions than before.
Thanks in advance for your feedback,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Hi Holger,
After trying to checkout and build the OpenBSC using command git checkout
-b on-waves/bsc-master origin/bsc-master, we got error as
fatal: git checkout: updating paths is incompatible with switching branches.
Did you intend to checkout 'origin/bsc-master' which can not be resolved as
commit?
So, may be we are not correct on the path or something else. can you please
advice, as we are not able to find bsc_msc_ip binary file.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther <
holger(a)freyther.de> wrote:
> On 09/30/2010 03:04 PM, tejas oza wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > We are implementing the separate MSC module and we will be using the
> openBSC,
> > and we are mainly concerned for SMS services. So, I will be highly
> obliged if
> > you can provide us the documentation on openBSC code so that we can
> understand
> > the messages expected on separate MSC side from open BSC and the messages
> to
> > be sent from MSC to openBSC side.
>
> In the on-waves/bsc-master branch you will find a bsc_msc_ip binary that
> will
> be able to connect to a real MSC through somthing that is coined SCCP-Lite
> (SCCP encapsulated inside the ipaccess protocol).
>
> If you look at bsc_hack it has no connection to anything but the BTS, so
> the
> BSC/MSC/VLR/HLR functionality is implemented in one binary.
>
>
--
Thanks & Regards
Tejas Oza
--
Thanks & Regards
Tejas Oza
Hello,
second try to add support to bs11_config for bport0/1 configuration. This
time with enum abis_bs11_line_cfg.
It seems sometimes creating bport1 fails, even LMT shows create obj
greyed out. Don't know why yet.
Regards,
Daniel Willmann
Daniel Willmann (1):
Add {create,delete}-bport1 and bport0-{star,multidrop} to bs11-config
openbsc/include/openbsc/abis_nm.h | 10 +++++++++-
openbsc/src/abis_nm.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
openbsc/src/bs11_config.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Hi Guys,
We are implementing the separate MSC module and we will be using the
openBSC, and we are mainly concerned for SMS services. So, I will be highly
obliged if you can provide us the documentation on openBSC code so that we
can understand the messages expected on separate MSC side from open BSC and
the messages to be sent from MSC to openBSC side.
--
Thanks & Regards
Tejas Oza
Dear sir,
I am planning to buy a ip.access nano BTS to run at GSM900.
What features should I quote as specification while placing the order ??
whether it (OpenBSC) will work properly with GSM900 or should I go for
DCS1800 ????
Thanks.
Hi,
I have been looking around and I am wondering, when you are interested in a
consumer 3G / Femto or Pico cell it might be very cheap through AT&T at
around $150. Might somebody be working rverse engineering on those cheaper
cells?
The nanoBTS from ipaccess is costing euro 3450 Mind you this is without any
software or server, just a single nanoBTS unit.
Does anybody have any experience and info about pricing? I find this price
crazy but it is the only way in the Netherland to buy it officially.
Also I have a license for GSM frequencies ad for that price they only send
it to an address.
Thanks
Albert
