OpenBSC November 2017

openbsc@lists.osmocom.org

21 participants
49 discussions

Re: osmo-bts-trx init problem
by Vadim Yanitskiy 02 Dec '17

02 Dec '17

Hi, > <000b> trx_if.c:409 transceiver (phy0.0) rejected TRX command > with response: 'RSP SETTSC -1' > > What is the problem and how can fix it? The OsmocomBB transceiver is a legacy transceiver, so please add the following line to your 'osmo-bts.cfg': osmotrx legacy-setbsic And please let me know about the results, I'll correct the wiki. With best regards, Vadim Yanitskiy.

5 8

LimeSDR support in osmocom:{nightly,latest} package feeds
by Harald Welte 29 Nov '17

29 Nov '17

Dear all, starting from today, we're packaging LimeSuite and (as needed) other dependencies required for using osmo-trx/osmo-bts-trx with LimeSDR in the network:osmocom:nightly and network:osmocom:latest feeds. The package versions are fixed and are not tracking "master" of e.g. limesuite. Only the Osmocom packages are tracking master. Due to the unfortunate fact that the first LimeSuite with osmo-trx support (17.09.0) requiring a cmake later than what Debian 8 ships, LimeSDR support is not working with all of the Distributions/Versions that the rest of the Osmocom stack supports. It appears that LimeSuite also has some build issues on ARM architectures, about which I've submitted an upstream bug report at https://github.com/myriadrf/LimeSuite/issues/151 But at least for x86_64 and i586 architecture, LimeSDR should be supported by the Osmocom package feeds , on Debian 9.0, Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04 and 17.10. We will shortly use those packages as part of our osmo-gsm-tester setup at the sysmocom lab, at which point they should receive extensive testing. 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)

1 0

Eclipse TITAN public release of SS7/SIGTRAN core protocols
by Harald Welte 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

Hi all, I've mentioned this many months before, but Ericsson has now (well, a month ago) finally made a public announcement about the public release of their SS7/SIGTRAN core protocols in TTCN-3. You can read more about it at https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/1089686/ - where they actually even refer to us as being the trigger to release them. There are still many tests to write beyond those currently existing. Most recently I wrote a set of MGCP tests for our new osmo-mgw, which Philipp is now using to iron out some kinks in the codebase. The past week I've been working on simulating the minimal subset of N numbers of BSCs and N numbers of MSCs from a single test suite in order to test osmo-bsc_nat, and specifically the "IMSI-based routing to different MSCs" feature that Daniel has been working on. It's still work in progress, but definitely the by far most complex TTCN-3 project that I've written so far. After completing that, I would like to spend some more time on OsmoBTS and OsmoBSC related tests. The difficulty here is that the more we get to the RAN / air interface, the less existing prtoocols / codecs exist, so e.g. A-bis RSL would first have to be implemented. The good part is that it's actually super easy using the expressive syntax of the TITAN "raw" codec. Basically you define the structure of the data in files like http://git.osmocom.org/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/tree/library/GSM_RR_Types.ttcn and you don't have to write a single line for encoding/parsing :) 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)

2 2

Re: RFC: new type for NAS/EPS in gsmtap.h and question
by Shinjo Park 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

2017년 11월 23일 목요일 오후 10시 34분 47초 CET에 Harald Welte 님이 쓴 글: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 09:47:25PM +0100, Martin Heusse wrote: > > Harald, Shinjo, > > please find below is a tiny patch to add > > #define GSMTAP_TYPE_LTE_NAS 0x12 > > to packet-gsmtap.h > > and the corresponding code that uses it. > > great, feel free to push this to the wireshark gerrit. > > I've made a corresponding change in libosmocore, see > https://gerrit.osmocom.org/5018 > Forwarding the discussion at Wireshark gerrit at https://code.wireshark.org/ review/#/c/24554/4: Devices dumping NAS messages can give both encrypted and plain messages. At least for Qualcomm LTE basebands it is true. Therefore using sub_type for differentiating encrypted and plain NAS messages were discussed there. This will likely introduce another modifications to gsmtap.h, and therefore want to discuss more about this topic also here. Shinjo -- Shinjo Park <pshinjo(a)sec.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Security in Telecommunications <sec.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> TU Berlin / Telekom Innovation Laboratories Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, Sekr TEL 17 / D - 10587 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 8353 58272

1 0

OSMO-IUH
by Radiarisainana Sitraka 27 Nov '17

27 Nov '17

Hello, I heard that it's possible to connect to a femtocell without knowing Ki and Opc... of the sim-card like the conferences of Nico Golde and Ranvinshar on the poisoning the femtocell.My question is , is it possible to make the same with the osmo-iuh on the future !? Chears,

2 1

load based handover
by Neels Hofmeyr 24 Nov '17

24 Nov '17

Hi Jolly, my current task is to implement load based handover between BTS, and in old tradition of adopting your code to implement dynamic timeslots on osmo-{bts,bsc}, I am now looking at the openbsc.git jolly/new_handover branch. I notice that, on that branch, there are improvements on the "old" handover, followed by a new elaborate handover_2 algorithm, which looks very sane at first sight, paired with an elaborate test suite. So my question is whether handover_2.c has some obvious shortcomings or open issues that need to be resolved before I can consider merging that to OsmoBSC's master branch. Should we still keep the "old" handover decision code around as well for particular reasons, or would it make sense to adopt handover_2.c by default? Is one better than the other in particular situations? And ... do you remember any high level conclusions from when you implemented the branch, things I should be aware of when testing and adopting the code? Did it work out as expected? How well tested is it? Thanks! ~N

2 1

default point codes
by Neels Hofmeyr 24 Nov '17

24 Nov '17

Looking at https://osmocom.org/projects/cellular-infrastructure/wiki/Point_Codes OsmoMSC currently uses 0.23.1 for A-and-Iu, and 0.23.2 for Iu only if Iu is on a different cs7 instance than A (i.e. practically never). Either way that doesn't really make sense to me. If OsmoMSC is connecting to the same STP for A and Iu, it is sufficient to have one point-code for the two SSNs for A (BSSAP) and Iu (RANAP) and hence use one cs7 instance for both. If it is connecting to two different STPs, the point codes do not collide anyway, and it makes no sense to use a different one for Iu. It only confuses the defaults, e.g. the wiki page was wrong until I fixed it just now. I would rather have just 0.23.1 for the MSC for all SSNs. See ss7_setup() in msc_main.c. Agreed? ~N

2 2

osmo-bts-trx init problem
by GSK MOSS 23 Nov '17

23 Nov '17

Hello! I got this problem: *root@pc:~/osmocom# osmo-bts-trx -c ~/.osmocom/osmo-bts.cfg((*)) | / \ OsmoBTS<0017> control_if.c:828 CTRL at 127.0.0.1 4238<0010> telnet_interface.c:104 telnet at 127.0.0.1 4241<0012> input/ipaccess.c:886 enabling ipaccess BTS mode, OML connecting to 127.0.0.1:3002 <http://127.0.0.1:3002><000b> trx_if.c:595 Open transceiver for phy0.0<0012> input/ipa.c:129 connection done.<0012> input/ipaccess.c:707 received ID get<0001> oml.c:229 O&M Get Attributes [0], Manufacturer Dependent State is unsupported by TRX.<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[0] (150 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[1] (180 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[2] (180 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[3] (1680 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[4] (520 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[5] (165 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:680 Ignoring T200[6] (1680 ms) as sent by BSC due to suspected LAPDm bug!<0001> oml.c:1049 ADM state already was Unlocked<0012> input/ipa.c:129 connection done.<0012> input/ipaccess.c:707 received ID get* *<000b> trx_if.c:409 transceiver (phy0.0) rejected TRX command with response: 'RSP SETTSC -1'* *<0001> bts.c:210 Shutting down BTS 0, Reason TRX-CTRL-MSG: CRITICAL* *<0007> l1sap.c:462 Invalid condition detected: Frame difference is 2452951-0 > 1!* *Shutdown timer expired* What is the problem and how can fix it? I used 1 phone and cfg files (from this tutorial https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/CalypsoBTS): - OsmoNITB: 'doc/examples/osmo-nitb/sysmobts/openbsc.cfg' - OsmoBTS: 'doc/examples/trx/osmo-bts.cfg' thanks!

2 1

RFC: new type for NAS/EPS in gsmtap.h and question
by Shinjo Park 23 Nov '17

23 Nov '17

Hi list, While I was experimenting with osmo-qcdiag and other LTE stuff, I want to add NAS/EPS as a new payload type for gsmtap.h. Unlike GSM and UMTS, LTE introduced separate layer for encryption of NAS and RRC. As a result, while NAS messages are piggybacked to LTE RRC, but after NAS security had been activated only encrypted NAS messages are available at RRC layer. This is reflected into the baseband diagnostics of various makers: Qualcomm provides separate diagnostic item for LTE NAS (both encrypted and plain) and RRC. Separate payload type for LTE RRC and LTE NAS will solve this issue. I can submit a patch if this looks positive. Also, I have a question regarding ARFCN field. Currently (in version 2) ARFCN is a 16-bit integer, with 2-bit of flags (PCS band, uplink) therefore making 14-bits available for raw value. This causes some problem in LTE: 1) EARFCNs for uplink are starting from 18000, which is larger than 2^14 2) There are EARFCNs even larger than 2^16 (Bands 65+, LTE-U frequencies) 3) No separate indicator for ARFCNs used by UMTS/LTE-TDD network Also in UMTS, there are overlapping UARFCNs between bands, which necessitates a separate field for band indicator. Changes regarding these will break the GSMTAP header structure, therefore I want to discuss about how these could be addressed. Best Regards, Shinjo -- Shinjo Park <pshinjo(a)sec.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Security in Telecommunications <sec.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> TU Berlin / Telekom Innovation Laboratories Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, Sekr TEL 17 / D - 10587 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 8353 58272

2 1

Re: RFC: new type for NAS/EPS in gsmtap.h and question
by Martin Heusse 23 Nov '17

23 Nov '17

Hi, working on a diagnostic interface, I also ran into the lack of a gsmtap type for LTE NAS plain messages. So I am supporting Shinzo's request for a new GSMTAP_TYPE_LTE_NAS (or GSMTAP_TYPE_LTE_UU) type in packet-gsmtap.h. This type would play a similar role to that of GSMTAP_TYPE_UM for GSM, if my understanding is correct. Best regards, Martin > Unlike GSM and UMTS, LTE introduced separate layer for encryption of NAS and > RRC. As a result, while NAS messages are piggybacked to LTE RRC, but after NAS > security had been activated only encrypted NAS messages are available at RRC > layer. This is reflected into the baseband diagnostics of various makers: > Qualcomm provides separate diagnostic item for LTE NAS (both encrypted and > plain) and RRC. Separate payload type for LTE RRC and LTE NAS will solve this > issue. I can submit a patch if this looks positive. > >

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

OpenBSC November 2017