> 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.
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
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
Hi community,
I feel a bit frustrated by how code review is going recently at osmocom.
Let me compare two larger feature branches:
There are weeks of review on 19 patches in osmo-hnbgw/cnpool,
and <24h from submit to merge on 14 patches in osmo-msc.
That may in some situations be ok and justified, but I feel that it is not:
The cnpool patch series for osmo-hnbgw spawned huge discussions and long delays
on account of minor issues: log lines, event names and comments. I said so, yet
it droned on and even spawned offspring.
None of the important features was part of code review:
larger design choices of the API, efficiency in handling the actual signalling,
correctness of the signalling. Maybe that's because all those were mint perfect
and no bugs anywhere, but I doubt that I'm really that good =)
And at the same time I was "just now" asked to review some patches for
osmo-msc, which changes an API that I have recently added and had ideas and
reasons for. Before I get a chance to even glance, I see that all the patches
are already merged! It is now basically too late to bring in my feedback,
because the patches are in, and why spend more time on it. Suck it up, bygones.
This very API that was being changed in osmo-msc in under 24 hours was itself
under code review scrutiny for at least three years.
Also I have (in my own free time) tried to get an improved logging timestamp
into libosmocore. This is tagging along for years and years now, because every
time over it is being blocked by minor details that are matters of taste. For
years I lose precious moments every time i have to read an 'extended-timestamp'
in osmo logging and identify the boundary of hours, minutes and seconds. This I
consider important. AFAIR the reasons for blocking the patches were,
objectively, all not important.
These examples are starkly unbalanced.
I'm sure you're aware of the bikeshed phenomenon -- it is a precise description
of what is happening. It would be great if we could turn that around a bit?
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html
Let's say, I know from experience that it is hard to give good code review, so
count me in on this advice.
Let's still give all the code review we can, but let's keep in mind the actual
impact the particular code change has. If it goes in the "fringe detail"
bucket, let's mention it, but just let it pass if the author disagrees.
Hope you understand my frustration and maybe even agree.
Thanks,
~N
Hi Neels,
I checked RF and BB hopping with my MetroSite with my patch added, and
they both seem to work, multi-TRX was tested a couple days ago, that
also works with 2 TRXes. Obviously I did not tested every possible
hopping scenarios, but in both cases the node manager reported the
correct hopping states and I also checked with a spectrum analyzer.
This means that either my UltraSite still has some issues, or that the
config logic for it needs a bit of tuning. The one difference I have
noticed is that the MetroSite does starts the RSL LAPD when the TRXes
reach a configured state, while the UltraSite needs the BSC to start
the RSL LAPD links even after the TRXes reach the same configured
state. FYI, I am running exactly the same BTS SW release on both units
(latest LTS ever released by the vendor), so they should not behave
differently from a pure SW point of view.
Anyway, at this point in time I don't see any particular issues that
indicates a BSC problem. One feature missing is the ability to
configure sectors (Nokia calls a sector a "BTS" while the base station
is called "BCF"). My question is, do we have any BTS type that has
sector configuration support so I can take a look how this was done
(if any) ?
Regards,
Csaba
Hello,
I know it's quite a dummy question (Beginner) but I'm actually trying the
BSC to two external MSCs but the attempt failed.
As per the doc, I did configure the cs7 instance.
Is there an example configuration file which I could go through.
--
Best Regards,
Varoon
Hi Neels,
Sorry for the late response.
As there is still a slight chance that the issue on my side is HW
related, I digged out my old MetroSite with 4 TRX as that is a little
bit smaller and easier to move compared to the Ultra cabinet :-)
So I will conduct some tests with it in the next couple days. Lets say
the issue is the same: what exactly do you need from me to maybe look
into it? I assume E1 pcap and logs. If you have a specific log mask,
or you need something else, please let me know.
Regards,
Csaba
Dear Osmocom community,
we're happy to announce the next incarnation of OsmoDevCall.
when:
June 21, 2023 at 20:00 CEST
where:
https://osmocom.org/OsmoDevCall (Big Blue Button)
This time, @falconia will be leading a discussion on
FR/HR/EFR voice codecs in Osmocom RAN
This meeting will have the following schedule:
20:00 meet + greet
20:10 topic as outlined above
21:00 unstructured supplementary social event [*]
Attendance is free of charge and open to anyone with an interest
in Osmocom or open source cellular technologies.
More information about OsmoDevCall, including the schedule
for further upcoming events can be found at
https://osmocom.org/projects/osmo-dev-con/wiki/OsmoDevCall
Looking forward to meeting you soon!
Best regards,
Harald
[*] this is how we started to call the "unstructured" part of osmocom
developer conferences in the past, basically where anyone can talk about
anything, no formal schedule or structure.
--
- Harald Welte <laforge(a)osmocom.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
