9 Jan
2012
9 Jan
'12
11:20 p.m.
On 09-Jan-12 20:57, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
Let's see; below is quote from the main page:
Quote:
"What this means: OpenBSC is not just a standard BSC, but a GSM network
in a box software, implementing the minimal necessary parts to build a
small, self-contained GSM network.
OpenBSC includes functionality normally performed by the following
components of a GSM network: BSC (Base Station Controller), MSC (Mobile
Switching Center), HLR (Home Location Register), AuC (Authentication
Center), VLR (Visitor Location Register), EIR (Equipment Identity
Register)."
What you have here in real/live network are a few racks, not to mention
the SGSN and GGSN that you have already implemented.
Am I missing something? Sorry for saying that but it looks like to me
that it is an appliance.
Thanks's
for sharing some light and excuse me if some things are wrong.
This is how I am seeing things from outside and after reading the project pages.
It is not wrong, we appear to follow different philosophies here. We follow
the Unix one, our BSC is doing what a BSC should do by definition (assigning
radio resources). What you want is that OpenBSC is an appliance and include
things that would be provided by other parts of the system.
E.g. Link State, Firewall settings should probably go
through SNMP, mISDN
should export the MIB via procfs, the SNMP daemon should read this file to
provide the status to whoever asks. In case the A-link is the only interface
to the outside the BSC could help to tunnel SNMP over the O&M link.
I didn't install yet the OpenBSC but as I said in a previous email I
will have it done by the end of next week and check all configs.
I was thinking that you already have everything implemented in OpenBSC
(BSC/MSC/VLR/HLR/AuC/EIR/SGSN/GGSN) and the only interfaces out are Abis
(IP or E1) and another ethernet for management of OpenBSC box.
So from my assumption above it started the idea with all-in-one config
and GUI for the mentioned pieces of this puzzle.
I guess I am wrong here...
In one point you are right, our documentation is not mature, incomplete,
outdated. Do you want to help to correct that?
I would really like to do that but I am not a programmer and I will/can
write documentation based on my tests and real life experience.
We need to discuss more on this topic.
holger
Best regards,
R.