Hi all,
Just wanted to share an issue and a quick workaround I found for it in case
anyone else has the same problem. I believe a cmd2 update is causing
pySim-shell to fail. After installing it on a fresh install of Ubuntu
Server 20.04 and getting the following error when I run "python3
pySim-shell -p0":
>Using PC/SC reader interface
>Autodetected card type: sysmoUSIM-SJS1
>AIDs on card:
> USIM: a0000000871002ffffffff8907090000
>Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "pySim-shell.py", line 512, in <module>
> app = PysimApp(card, rs, opts.script)
> File "pySim-shell.py", line 59, in __init__
> super().__init__(persistent_history_file='~/.pysim_shell_history',
allow_cli_args=False, use_ipython=True, auto_load_commands=False,
command_sets=basic_commands, >startup_script=script)
>TypeError: __init__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'use_ipython'
If you run into this you can fix it by uninstalling cmd2 and reinstalling
cmd2 with "pip3 install cmd2==1.5".
Best,
Bryan
> 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,
I had a problem placing MO GSM calls from a Siemens S11E: The calls
were dropped immediately; Osmo-MSC reports "Cannot compose Channel
Type from bearer capabilities"
After investigating the SETUP request from the S11E, the phone does
not use octet 3a (no extension bit set in IE 3). Wireshark decodes the
radio channel requirement as "Full rate support only MS/fullrate
speech version 1 supported", so I added a condition to the gsm48_ie.c
function of libosmocore to include at least GSM FR in the list of
available speech_ver in case octet 3 has no extension.
Attached to this message are the Abis-IP PCAP traces of MO calls, and
the patch for gsm48_ie.c.
Regards,
Lennart
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
libosmocore/include/osmocom/codec/ecu.h lines 32-44:
/* As the developer and copyright holder of the related code, I hereby
* state that any ECU implementation using 'struct osmo_ecu_ops' and
* registering with the 'osmo_ecu_register()' function shall not be
* considered as a derivative work under any applicable copyright law;
* the copyleft terms of GPLv2 shall hence not apply to any such ECU
* implementation.
*
* The intent of the above exception is to allow anyone to combine third
* party Error Concealment Unit implementations with libosmocodec.
* including but not limited to such published by ETSI.
*
* -- Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> on August 1, 2019.
*/
Question about "ECU implementations ... published by ETSI": what
exactly are they? To the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong, I am
a late joiner to this party), ETSI/3GPP never published any ECU
implementations - instead what they did publish are reference encoder
and decoder implementations for HR1, EFR and AMR codecs. In each of
those reference codec implementations, the error concealment function
is deeply intertied with the guts of the decoder (the thing that puts
out a block of 160 linear PCM samples, *not* a corrected codec frame)
and does not exist as a separable piece - thus none of those reference
codec implementations can be meaningfully called an ECU implementation,
and there is no code in there that could be hooked up to libosmocodec
ECU framework in a technically feasible way, no matter what license.
So what I am missing? Are there some other code publications from
ETSI or 3GPP which I am not aware of, ones that do implement a
separate or at least separable ECU, as opposed to a complete decoder
that takes potentially-errored codec frames as input and emits linear
PCM as output? If any such "true" ECU implementations do exist, I
would love to be pointed in the direction of one!
M~
I fixed something in SCCP_Emulation.ttcn (from Ericsson), and trying out what
I'm allowed to do, it happened so that I just pushed the fix onto
https://github.com/osmocom/titan.ProtocolEmulations.SCCP master
See https://github.com/osmocom/titan.ProtocolEmulations.SCCP/commit/17a894fc662…
The fix is trivial enough, but I'd like to note that I pushed something that
no-one reviewed, and hope that's ok.
my github user is part of that Osmocom group, I set the remote to a git@...
URL, so that's why I could just push onto master.
For the future, do we have a process to review fixes for Ericsson's ttcn code?
Send it to this ML?
~N
Hello GSM community,
I just pushed a private feature branch to osmo-bts, implementing a
feature of much interest to me:
https://cgit.osmocom.org/osmo-bts/log/?h=falconia/rtp_traulike
What is it all about? This document, contained inside the branch,
explains it all:
https://cgit.osmocom.org/osmo-bts/tree/doc/rtp_traulike.txt?h=falconia/rtp_…
Some day I would like to see this feature merged (it is enabled with a
vty option, and if you don't set that option, nothing changes), but
whether it will ever be merged or not, this feature is what I am going
to run with in my ThemWi operation, and themwi-mgw (my Osmocom CN to
G.711 PSTN transcoder) is going to depend on it.
Enjoy!
Hasta la Victoria, Siempre,
Mychaela aka The Mother
Hello GSM community,
I realize that most of you over in Osmocom land would much rather see
me submit Gerrit patches than write lengthy ML posts, but right now I
really need some help with the algorithmic logic of a feature before I
can develop patches implementing said feature - so please bear with
me.
The fundamental question is: what is the most correct way for a GSM
network (let's ignore divisions between network elements for the
moment) to construct the DL speech frame stream for call leg B if it
is coming from the UL of call leg A? I am talking about call scenarios
where call leg A and call leg B use the same codec, thus no transcoding
is done (TrFO), and let me also further restrict this question to
old-style FR/HR/EFR codecs, as opposed to AMR.
At first the answer may seem so obvious that many people will probably
wonder why I am asking such a silly question: just take the speech
frame stream from call leg A UL, feed it to call leg B DL and be done
with it, right? But the question is not so simple. What should the
UL-to-DL mapper do when the UL stream hits a BFI instead of a valid
speech frame? What should this mapper do if call leg A does DTXu but
there is no DTXd on call leg B?
The only place in 3GPP specs where I could find an answer to this
question is TS 28.062 section C.3.2.1.1. Yes, I know that it's the
spec for in-band TFO within G.711, a feature which I reason no one
other than me probably cares about, but that particular section - I am
talking about section C.3.2.1.1 specifically, you can ignore the rest
of TFO for the purpose of this question - seems to me like it should
apply to _any_ scenario where an FR/HR/EFR frame stream is directly
passed from call leg A to call leg B without transcoding, including
scenarios like a self-contained Osmocom network with OsmoMSC switching
from one MS to another without any external MNCC.
Let us first consider the case of FR1 codec, which is the simplest.
Suppose call leg A has DTXu but call leg B has no DTXd - one can't do
DTXd on C0, so if 200 kHz of spectrum is all you got, operating a BTS
with just C0, then no one can do DTXd. When Alice on call leg A is
silent, her MS will send a SID every 480 ms and have its Tx off the
rest of the time, and the frame stream from the BTS serving her call
leg will exhibit a SID frame in every 24th position and BFI placemarkers
in all other positions.
So what should the DL frame stream going to Bob look like in this
scenario? My reading of section C.3.2.1.1 (second paragraph from the
top is the one that covers this scenario) tells me that the *network*
(set aside the question of which element) is supposed to turn that
stream of BFIs with occasional interspersed SIDs into a stream of
valid *speech* frames going to Bob, a stream of valid speech frames
representing comfort noise as produced by a network-located CN
generator. The spec says in that paragraph: "The Downlink TRAU Frames
shall not contain the SID codeword, but parameters that allow a direct
decoding."
Needless to say, there is no code anywhere in Osmocom currently that
does the above, thus current Osmocom is not able to produce the fancy
TrFO behavior which the spec(s) seem to call for. (I said "spec(s)"
vaguely because I only found a spec for TFO, not for TrFO, but I don't
see any reason why this aspect of TFO spec shouldn't also apply to
TrFO when the actual problem at hand is exactly the same.)
But no no no guys, I am *not* bashing Osmocom here, I am seeking to
improve it! As it happens, fully implementing the complete set of
TS 28.062 section C.3.2.1.1 rules (I shall hereafter call them C3211
rules for short) for the original FR1 codec would be quite easy, and I
already have a code implementation which I am eyeing to integrate into
Osmocom. Themyscira libgsmfrp is a FLOSS library that implements a
complete, spec-compliant Rx DTX handler for FR1, and it is 100% my own
original work, not based on ETSI or TI or any other sources, thus no
silly license issues - and I am eyeing the idea of integrating the
same functions, appropriately renamed, repackaged and re-API-ed, into
libosmocodec, and then invoking that functionality in OsmoBTS, in the
code path that goes from RTP Rx to feeding TCH DL to PHY layers.
But while FR1 is easy, doing the same for EFR is where the real
difficulty lies, and this is the part where I come to the community
for help. The key diff between FR1 and EFR that matters here is how
their respective Rx DTX handlers are defined in the specs: for FR1 the
Rx DTX handler is a separate piece, with the interface from this Rx
DTX handler to the main body of the decoder being another 260-bit FR1
frame (this time without possibility of SID or BFI), and the specs for
DTX (06.31 plus 06.11 and 06.12) define and describe the needed Rx DTX
handler in terms of emitting that secondary 260-bit FR1 frame. Thus
implementing this functionality in Themyscira libgsmfrp was a simple
matter of taking the logic described in the specs and turning it into
code.
But for EFR the specs do not define the Rx DTX handler as a separate
piece, instead it is integrated into the guts of the full decoder.
There is a decoder, presented as published C source from ETSI, that
takes a 244-bit EFR frame, which can be either speech or SID, *plus* a
BFI flag as input, and emits a block of 160 PCM samples as output -
all Rx DTX logic is buried inside, intertwined with the actual speech
decoder operation, which is naturally quite complex.
I've already spent a lot of time looking at the reference C
implementation of EFR from ETSI - I kinda had to, as I did the rather
substantial work of turning it into a usable function library, with
state structures and a well-defined interface instead of global vars
and namespace pollution - the result is Themyscira libgsmefr - but I
am still nowhere closer to being able to implement C3211 functionality
for this codec.
The problem is this: starting with a EFR SID frame and previous history
of a few speech frames (the hangover period), how would one produce
output EFR speech frames (not SID) that represent comfort noise, as
C3211 says is required? We can all easily look at ETSI's original
code that generates CN as part of the standard decoder: but that code
generates linear PCM output, not secondary EFR speech frames that
represent CN. There is the main body of the speech decoder, and there
are conditions throughout that slightly modify this decoder logic in
subtle ways for CN generation and/or for ECU-style substitution/muting
- but no guidance for how one could construct "valid speech" EFR
frames that would produce a similar result when fed to the standard
decoder in the MS after crossing radio leg B.
This is where I could really use some input from more senior and more
knowledgeable GSM-ers: does anyone know how mainstream commercial GSM
infra vendors (particularly "ancient" ones of pure T1/E1 TDM kind)
have solved this problem? What do _they_ do in the scenario of call
leg A with DTXu turning into call leg B without DTXd?
Given that those specs were written in the happy and glorious days
when everyone used 2G, when GSM operators had lots of spectrum, and
when most networks operated large multi-ARFCN BTSes with frequency
hopping, I figure that almost everyone probably ran with DTXd enabled
when that spec section was written - hence if I wonder if the authors
of the TFO spec failed to appreciate the magnitude of what they were
asking implementors to do when they stipulated that a UL-to-DL mapping
from DTXu-on to DTXd-off "shall" emit no-SID speech frames that
represent TFO-TRAU-generated CN. And if I wonder if the actual
implementors ignored that stipulation even Back In The Day...
Here is one way how we might be able to "cheat" - what if we implement
a sort of fake DTXd in OsmoBTS for times when real DTXd is not possible
because we only have C0? Here is what I mean: suppose the stream of
TCH frames about to be sent to the PHY layer (perhaps the output of my
proposed, to-be-implemented UL-to-DL mapper) is the kind that would be
intended for DTXd-enabled DL in the original GSM architecture, with
all speech pauses filled with repeated SIDs, every 20 ms without fail.
A traditional DTXd BTS is supposed to transmit only those SIDs that
either immediately follow a speech frame or fall in the SACCH-aligned
always-Tx position, and turn the Tx off at other times. We can't
actually turn off Tx at those "other" times when we are C0 - but what
if we create a "fake DTXd" effect by transmitting a dummy FACCH
containing an L2 fill frame at exactly the same times when we would do
real DTXd if we could? The end effect will be that the spec-based Rx
DTX handler in the MS will "see" the same "thing" as with real DTXd:
receiving FACCH in all those "empty" 20 ms frame windows will cause
that spec-based Rx DTX handler to get BFI=1, exactly the same as if
radio Tx were truly off and the MS were listening to radio noise.
Anyway, I would love to hear other people's thoughts on these ideas,
especially if someone happens to know how traditional GSM infra vendors
handled those pesky requirements of TS 28.062 section C.3.2.1.1 for
UL-to-DL mapping.
Sincerely,
Your GSM-obsessed Mother Mychaela
(Trying TLDR as asked)
Does anyone here happen to live in a country where at least one public
GSM network is known to still operate with traditional T1/E1 TRAUs? I
would like to try making an international call from my G.711 VoIP
system in USA to a GSM MS in whatever country that is served by a
traditional TRAU, and see if I can detect TFO in-band signaling within
the G.711 PCM sample stream coming from the far end. Or if someone
knows for certain some solid technical reason why this idea is doomed,
I would appreciate that explanation too.
Reason for my interest: I have a desire to implement GSM 08.62 or 3GPP
TS 28.062 TFO, and of course publish the source under a public domain
license, but the protocol is complex enough to where I don't see any
feasible way to test for correctness other than through actual
interoperability testing with an existing implementation.
M~
