Hi list,
looking at the logging code, I was surprised: turns out the 'logging level all
everything', though quite a misnomer, was an important counterpart to 'logging
level all (debug|...|fatal)'. It worked like this:
Assuming some levels are set...
logging level foo fatal
logging level bar debug
Now 'logging level all' would override all of them forcefully:
logging level all error
# Now all categories including 'foo' and 'bar' log exactly error,fatal
# messages.
logging level all debug
# Now all categories including 'foo' and 'bar' log all messages from debug
# thru fatal.
# manipulating individual categories has no effect at all now!
logging level foo notice
logging level bar error
# no change in logging behavior!
logging level foo fatal
logging level bar debug
# the way to get rid of the forced level was:
logging level all everything
# Now we see above configured behavior of foo == fatal, bar == debug
This is *still the case*, only that we're now ignoring the 'everything'
keyword. The consequence is that we can force all categories and clamp them to
all-the-same level, but we cannot lift that clamp anymore! :/
I think we should never have accepted the removal of 'everything' as such, it
should have been replaced with a more accurate command, like
'no logging level all'. I am considering to bring this back now, ... but
But now that we haven't had 'everything' for a long time and the outrage about
it has been limited, I am also drawn towards completely dropping that feature,
or at least renaming it. Damage is done, no need to go back to mad naming.
From the logging discussion, we concluded that we want a command to set the log
level for all categories at once, one-time; not force-clamping all to one level
until the clamp is removed, but as if we set each individual level manually.
I've cracked my head on what name other than "all" we could want this command
to have, 'logging level (*|each|any|set-all)'? I keep coming back to
'logging level all (debug|...|fatal)' being by far the best name for this.
Backwards compatibility: what do users see when we modify 'logging level all'
to not be a forceful clamp, but instead setting individual levels once-off?
If a user had a config of "all" coming last:
logging level foo debug
logging level bar fatal
logging level all notice
then the experience is that all categories are logging at level 'notice', and
that is what the user most likely also expects to happen. Changing the 'all'
command does not change the logging behavior one bit.
If in turn the config has "all" first:
logging level all notice
logging level foo debug
logging level bar fatal
Then the experience is still that before changing the command, all categories
are logging at level 'notice'. Most likely the user expected though to see
foo='debug' and bar='fatal', because they were set after the 'all' -- what
other reason could a user have to keep these lines in the config file, which
don't have any effect as-is? If we change the 'all' command to not be a
forceful clamp but just a one-time set, then the logging behavior changes to
what the user likely expected when writing this config. However: if these
settings were forgotten in the config file, we would suddenly change the
logging behavior and might surprise users ... but I still kinda think we would
change it to what the user expected, right? And the user would likely go: "ah,
finally it's doing what I wanted all the while!" right?
So, I want to make 'logging level all' manipulate each individual category
once-off, I want to completely deprecate the 'everything' keyword, and drop the
"global clamp" feature entirely.
Maybe I'd re-add the clamp as 'logging level force-all (debug|...|fatal)' and
'no logging level force-all' to switch it off. That would be exactly the old
clamping feature just with less confusing names.
The only thing that makes me write here is that I'm only 90% sure on changing
the meaning of an existing command, of 'logging level all'. If there is no
negative feedback on this here, that would bring me to 100%.
Thanks!
~N
Hi community!
I'd like here to set out a few issues that we have identified for going
forward with the rhizomatica autonomous networks and the osmocom split
stack.
Some of this has been very briefly discussed between myself and Pablo,
and I bring it to the mailing list so hopefully there will be feedback,
ideas and suggestions :)
I am cherry picking from previous emails here, (mostly mine) please
excuse any repetition. I hope others will post their previous comments
on this thread, either verbatim of edited to be relevant to the current
discussion.
1) This is a question that relates to voip traffic in and out of the
autonomous communities over satellite.
Currently this is what we HAVE to have in the local village to support
autonomous operation):
* BSC
* MSC
* HLR
* Freeswitch (freeswitch is our call control, call routing, billing etc)
We can't have any essential backhaul running over the satellite , like A
for example as we would loose all functionality when the sat link is
down, and we'd burn expensive bandwidth!
One option to use osmux from autonomous community (village) is to teach
osmo-mgw to speak osmux, then we have a co-located bsc/msc/mgw in the
village, and the media transport is osmux to another mgw in our
datacentre that is demuxing and converting to RTP suitable to be
forwarded to our upstream VoIP provider.
The question here is what is signalling the MGW in the data centre?
Maybe another freeswitch could signal the osmoMGW via some kind of
SIP<->MGCP
translator. Or we teach the MGW to speak SIP?
Another option that I want to put on the table and see what people say
is to look at implementing osmux as a
codec in freeswitch.
I don't know what that would mean in terms of effort.
I don't know if the osmux code can be abstracted, if that is the right
term, into it's
own external includible library that could then be used to build a
freeswitch codec. I looked some implementations of AMR codec for
freeswitch, and really it looks like a boiler plate codec with
registration, setup and then it calls the encoding and decoding
functions in the opencore amr library.
Maybe, we can do the same with osmux? Then we could have two freeswitchs
signalling and transcoding to/from osmux? - then we are not really
working on osmo solution and others in the
osmo community might prefer to see osmux fully implemented in MGW before
anything else?
Here are a number of related tickets from Harald on osmux integration:
http://osmocom.org/issues/1683 and http://osmocom.org/issues/2832
as well as https://osmocom.org/issues/2909
I think though, that in 1683, we are stalled by
https://osmocom.org/issues/2391 for the split setup.
2) Another question relates to this proposal of a media gateway less mode:
https://osmocom.org/issues/3142
I think this suits us, because really our call signalling is all
happening in freeswitch and we would prefer I think not to have the
media gateway at all most of the time. and in fact for local Mobile to
Mobile calls on the same BTS,
we would in fact prefer the RTP be local on the sysmobts, or indeed
BTS<->BTS!
Freeswitch has a "bypass media" parameter, in fact you can even activate
this at
call processing time before bridging the call, depending on whether it
makes sense in terms of direct connection being possible and the lack of
transcoding.
There's also a "bypass media after bridge" parameter that is
automatically using SIP (re)-INVITES to switch the RTP stream from
passing through freeswitch or going directly from end point to end point.
Using "bypass media" in our profile works nicely; of course, as all it
is doing is using the IP address(es) of the
osmo-bts in the SDP, so the rtp stream loops on lo in the sysmobts. It
would help with something that I mentioned at Osmodevcon, Harald, which
was that in some cases we might like to avoid having our RTP go
over the (sometimes variable quality) Wifi links between the BTS and the
BSC.
A problem is that if you use "bypass media" you have no early media and
no audible ringing signal, you don't get any audio stream until the B
leg picks up. This is what "bypass media after bridge" is for.
Unfortunately, osmo-nitb (at least, and I don't believe anything has
been done in osmo-bsc related) plus LCR or osmo-sip-connector
combinations do not react correctly to the SIP reINVITES, you end up
with multiple calls. So all that needs to be fixed / implemented.
I noticed mention of implementation of MNCC_RTP_MODIFY on fairwaves
branches of OpenBSC and LCR.
I've compiled and tested this, but as far as I can see it is still not
working, as issuing a SIP reINVITE from freeswitch is still setting up
new calls, not just changing the RTP streams. Maybe I also need a
fairwaves osmo-bts.
So this is something I think I would like to see:
* Full support for SIP reinvite in osmo-sip-connector which would then
send a MNCC_RTP_MODIFY which ends up sending (I think it's called a
IPAC_CRCX?) to osmo-bts which will then switch the stream endpoints.
This I believe is also necessary for handover to function with an MNCC
socket setup and we don't currently have it, not even in the osmo-nitb.
* Implement a no media gateway mode in osmo-msc and have the MSC control
the media stream using SIP via MNCC/osmo-sip-connector instead of
controlling
the MGW using MGCP.
K/
I was browsing a little through the osmux code in openbsc and
libosmo-netif, but I did not quite find the answer to this question I have:
Pablo maybe you can shed light?
When you divide the OSMUX stream again and turn each circuit ID back
into individual RTP stream you have an associated port and IP, right?
(on the terrestrial side)
I'm wondering if we could have:
* local bsc and it's colocated mgw
* local msc, with two colocated mgws (we decide which one to signal
depending on if the call is local or needs the SAT stream)
another point here is I undertand we don't _really_ need two MGWs, so
maybe just one in the village, shared between bsc/msc and one in the
datacentre.
so in the case of a call that is using sat/ osmux, the MSC in the
village is signalling the MGW in the datacentre, therefore this MSC
knows which IP/port combination to tell to osmo-sip-connector and on to
freeswitch, which then signals whatever SIP UA in the data centre
So, the fact that osmux is used at all is completely transparent to the
SIP UAs
Does that make sense?
k/
Hi Community,
Is there a documentation regarding the Call Detail Logs in any of the OSMO Elements such as Call Information (call started, duration and end/caller and callee information,etc...) and SMS Information (sent/received time/sender and receiver,etc...)?
And may we know what log level configuration do we need to configure for us to see those information?
Thanks in advance.
Best Regard,
Ron Menez
ron.menez(a)entropysolution.com<mailto:ron.menez@entropysolution.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org>
Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Multi-Tenancy / Multi-Operator Support
To: Shingirai Simba <shingy92(a)gmail.com>
Hi!
I would appreciate if you could send your response to the mailing list, so I
can further follow-up to it. This way, our conversation is to the benefit
of the wider Osmocom community.
Regards,
Harald
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:57:48AM +0200, Shingirai Simba wrote:
> Hie Harald
>
> Indeed i am referring to 3GPP MOCN / GWCN as per TS 23.251, but any
viable
> work around is most welcomed even if it does not met specifications. I am
> contemplating the idea of just running this kind of configuration as 3
> different LXD instances, but will i able to share the same physical SDR
> radio instance with the 3 separate core networks.'
>
> Regards
>
> Shingirai A. Simba
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:54 AM Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Shingirai Simba,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:15:26PM +0200, Shingirai Simba wrote:
> > > We are contemplating on a Multi-Operator / shared radio for 3
communitiy
> > > operators in Zimbabwe, Africa.
> >
> > The question is: How exactly does the above high-level goal translate
into
> > concrete technical architecture? Would the goal be to run your complete
> > own
> > PLMN with the other operators just roaming into that network (i.e. using
> > TCAP/MAP
> > roaming interface), or are you referring to a 3GPP MOCN / GWCN as per TS
> > 23.251?
> >
> > Or something else entirely?
> >
> > > Does OsmoBSC/OsmoMSC n support this using SDR front ends.
> >
> > In either of the two cases, the current implementation doesn't provide
> > everything
> > you'd need for such a setup. But let's continue this discussion once
it's
> > more
> > clear what kind of technical architecture you're looking for.
> >
> > --
> > - 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)
> >
--
- 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)
Hie
We are contemplating on a Multi-Operator / shared radio for 3 communitiy
operators in Zimbabwe, Africa.
Does OsmoBSC/OsmoMSC n support this using SDR front ends.
Regards
Shingirai Simba
