Hi Neels,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:51:14PM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
I like OsmoMSC because it's a name familiar to all GSM network operators, while every time I write CSCN I feel that I have to explain it because we invented it. The VLR is also officially a component of the MSC, right?
"officially" the VLR is co-located with the MSC, but a VLR may exist separately and the VLR coverage area can encompass multiple MSC coverage areas. Not sure if anyone ever implemented it that way, though.
It's the same like the AUC which is co-located with the HLR but may actually be a separate box. Still, I think it's common-place in the 3GPP world to use MSC=MSC+VLR and HLR=HLR+AUC.
I'd be ok with calling it MSC before the SMSC is separated, because then we won't have a rename in our main history besides the move from OsmoNITB to OsmoMSC. I can rename CSCN to MSC on the branch and then CSCN is poof, gone.
fine with me. You can add a symlink, if you'd like ;) Hell, we can even be funky and make a multi-call binary that will behave differently depending on argv[0] - but no, let's not go there. We're not busybox.
We already have OsmoCSCN named in some blog posts / wiki and a project with this name on osmocom.org, I guess the sooner we converge to a long term name (OsmoMSC) the better, to minimize the spread and confusion.
ACK. Let's do it at the time when the Iu and the VLR branches merge, i.e. once the HLR is no longer included, and A and Iu interface are offered.