13 Apr
2016
13 Apr
'16
7:15 p.m.
Holger,
Just for clarification, it is not about classic roaming, but about
roaming-based network sharing concept which is described in TS 123 251
Network sharing; Architecture and functional description.
It is also includes 4.2.3.2 Behaviour of non-supporting UEs (GERAN, UTRAN)
"It is recommended for the network and the UE to support the Network
Identity part of the Network Identity and Time Zone feature for providing
the UE with the name of the serving PLMN operator."
Regarding classic roaming, we have implemented remote protocol for LU (and
also for SMS and USSD) based on gsup protocol and this protocol allows to
update and manage the subscriber list, which includes:
* Get a yes/no if it is allowed to roam
* Get subscriber data (MSISDN, ...)
Calls are handled through MNCC/SIP in case of roaming scenario and does not
require any changes.
This code in our fairwaves/sup-* branches, but it is not ready for merging
now, I hope we will be able to cleanup this code soon.
2016-04-13 13:39 GMT+03:00 Holger Freyther <holger(a)freyther.de>de>:
>
> > On 13 Apr 2016, at 05:18, Ivan Kluchnikov <Ivan.Kluchnikov(a)fairwaves.ru>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Holger,
> >
>
> Hi Ivan,
>
>
> >
>
Yes, I agree that the current implementation is not
enough flexible and
it is a good idea to use imsi-prefix instead of mcc and mnc, also it will
fix the issue with 3 digit mnc.
yes? But how do you intend to fix it? The current structure will not be
enough
It requires changes in the code, but what I meant, we can have it as an
option later - whether you want to specify mcc/mnc separately or as a
prefix/regex. Btw, I think we can treat mcc/mnc as strings for virtual
networks instead of integers to solve the 2/3 digit mnc issue.
Do you think it makes sense?
But I am not sure that I understand the idea of using regexp for the
IMSI, could
you please clarify for which cases it could be useful?
I understand you want to fill a short-term gap but I don't think it is the
right approach to "roaming" at all. At the end of classic roaming one will:
* Get a yes/no if it is allowed to roam
* Get subscriber data (MSISDN, ...)
* The subscribed services (allowed to do telephony)
Right now the code is just about sending different network names. that
seems very different from roaming? Yes, I agree that the current implementation is not
enough flexible and
it is a good idea to use imsi-prefix instead of mcc and mnc, also it will
fix the issue with 3 digit mnc.
yes? But how do you intend to fix it? The current structure will not be
enough
> > Do you think it makes sense?
> > But I am not sure that I understand the idea of using regexp for the
> IMSI, could you please clarify for which cases it could be useful?
>
> I understand you want to fill a short-term gap but I don't think it is the
> right approach to "roaming" at all. At the end of classic roaming one
will:
>
> * Get a yes/no if it is allowed to roam
> * Get subscriber data (MSISDN, ...)
> * The subscribed services (allowed to do telephony)
>
> Right now the code is just about sending different network names. that
> seems very different from roaming?
>
> holger
--
Regards,
Ivan Kluchnikov.
http://fairwaves.ru