14 Feb
2017
14 Feb
'17
11:44 p.m.
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.
--
- 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)