Hi all,
After buying a super Sim Kit (16 in 1) from China, I tried the reader (green PCB inside a blue transparent plastic case with a blue LED) and SIM (identified as a fakesupersim) with pysim tool. However i am getting the following error:
/pySim-prog.py -n 26C3 -c 49 -x 262 -y 42 -z 1234 -j 1 -t auto
Insert card now (or CTRL-C to cancel)
Autodetected card type fakemagicsim
Generated card parameters :
> Name : 26C3
> SMSP : e1ffffffffffffffffffffffff058100945555ffffffffffff000000
> ICCID : 8949262427518313026
> MCC/MNC : 262/42
> IMSI : 262422461512085
> Ki : 7b74741a1ee14337ec23f9ab92a13648
> OPC : ccd867d60797d8d45354a51b3ef568ff
Programming ...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./pySim-prog.py", line 530, in <module>
card.program(cp)
File "/home/nadicek/pysim/pysim/pySim/cards.py", line 231, in program
self._scc.update_binary('6f30', hplmn + 'ff' * (tl-3))
File "/home/nadicek/pysim/pysim/pySim/commands.py", line 53, in update_binary
return self._tp.send_apdu_checksw(pdu)
File "/home/nadicek/pysim/pysim/pySim/transport/__init__.py", line 87, in send_apdu_checksw
raise RuntimeError("SW match failed ! Expected %s and got %s." % (sw.lower(), rv[1]))
RuntimeError: SW match failed ! Expected 9000 and got 9804.
I checked mailing lists and haven’t found anybody who had similar problem with pysim. Also I have tried forcing different models of SIM, but nothing is working. Obviously I can remove this check from the script file (__init__.py in /pySim/transport), however somebody had a reason to put such condition there. I would like to ask if it is safe to remove that line of code and the purpose of that line of code.
Thanks a lot and best regards
Martin
> I don't understand. This callback will be called with data you need to
write
> to the network. In case of MTP Level3 you will need to wrap that around
the
> msgb you got.
I means: is the interaction with mtp3 layer implemented (is sending sccp
data by mtp3 implemented by the library?)?
Also, what about the reception of data from mtp3 layer. is that implemented
in the sccp lib.
I am asking these questions because I see the code of mtp3 in the lib but no
significant call is present in the sccp part of the lib.
Thank you for your help.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:05:28AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> [translated from german]
> is it certain that we switch a channel to PDCH only when
> gprs mode != none?
A TS can be GSM_PCHAN_TCH_F_PDCH; those are the only ones for which we
send a PDCH ACT message.
We send a PDCH ACT message
- during init (CHANNEL OML's state changed to enabled -> send PDCH ACT),
- and upon channel release ack when pchan == GSM_PCHAN_TCH_F_PDCH.
So the question is, when we receive a channel release ack, could that be
the PDCH release and we switch PDCH right back on by accident? No, because
we only receive a chan rel ack when the *TCH/F* is being released.
That is because the PDCH release is initiated "internally" from the PDCH
DEACT, and thus this condition in common/rsl.c rsl_tx_rf_rel_ack() catches
on, which existed before dyn PDCH:
if (lchan->rel_act_kind != LCHAN_REL_ACT_RSL) {
LOGP(DRSL, LOGL_NOTICE, "%s not sending REL ACK\n",
gsm_lchan_name(lchan));
return 0;
}
In rsl_rx_rf_chan_rel() the rel_act_kind is set to LCHAN_REL_ACT_RSL, but
not in the rsl_rx_dyn_pdch().
This is analogous to the ip.access way -- the ip.access nanobts replies to
a PDCH DEACT with a PDCH DEACT ACK and doesn't send a separate channel
release ack.
Maybe we could set rel_act_kind to some new LCHAN_REL_ACT_IPAC_DYN_PDCH
for clarity? (But we shouldn't actually send a release ack, to stay
compatible.)
Even though it works as-is, we should indeed add another flag check:
- We do check the flags that no ACT/DEACT is already pending;
- And we do send a PDCH DEACT only if ts->flags & TS_F_PDCH_ACTIVE;
- But we would send a PDCH ACT despite ts->flags & TS_F_PDCH_ACTIVE.
This should never happen, but it would make sense to ensure that.
~Neels
Hi,
My name is Brackley Cassinga Form DRC, we run a community network called
pamoja net where we offer gsm services using osmocom open source software
and OC Base station.
Recently I have tried to install another base station as the same installed
but I could not find any resource guiding through all the steps to take to
run NIB on a base station.
I'm currently running Ubuntu and I will appreciate if you could guide me on
the installation of BSC,hlr,MSC , in order to run a basic gsm network.
Thank you. Regards
--
*Ir Brackley heshima Casinga **Pacifique*
*CEO and Founder of kwanzatechnologie*
KwanzaTechnologies ,GlobalElectronics
+243977265291 | +243977265291 | Pcassinga(a)gmail.com/
brackley(a)ensemblepourladifference.org
www.kwantechnologies.jimdosite.com <http://www.kwantechnologies.com/> |
Skype: Brackley cassinga <https://webapp.wisestamp.com/#>
Av Semliki N 43
Hi all,
we need to wrap up the DGSM work and get it to a state that can be merged to
master.
There are still open issues that I am not sure how to solve, which I've
mentioned on some occasions, but it seems to not have been loud enough.
I would easily choose one way, but am not sure about others' opinions.
(1) One open point is the GSUP peer identification. I've added a comment
explaining it in https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hlr/+/16459/9
Me personally, I would strip down basically all of that complexity again and go
with the simplest solution, a nul terminated size limited char string for GSUP
peer id. The patch became what it is because vague requirements were thrown in
the mix and I tried to accomodate them, and now it ended up being a rather ugly
shim around a simple char string, really.
(2) Another open question is the freeing behavior in osmo_gsup_req (for proper
async handling of DGSM, and to ensure proper GSUP responses). I've added a
comment explaining that in https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-hlr/+/16205/29
The gist for both issues is that I could write patches that would have a large
ripple effect throug many files and follow-up patches, but if we again disagree
on the outcome, the work would multiply.
So, DGSM works and is ready, except that we need to agree on what will be
accepted by review. I need opinions to be able to complete this (or possibly a
"go" to do whatever I think is right and merge that).
Thanks!
~N
