9 Aug
2010
9 Aug
'10
5:07 p.m.
I have some questions:
1) When I start bsc_hack bsc_init.c first establishes OML link and
initializes the bts then it establishes RSL link and bts starts
broadcasting. However, it takes so much time to start the bts. Instead of
this I want to do the following: it establishes OML link at the beginning
and only once, then when i want to start broadcasting it establishes just
the RSL link and bts will start faster since i don't have to wait for OML
link. What should be done for this?
2) If i send one or two word messages from telnet interface it is okay. But
if i send a longer message the phone could't receive the end of the message
correctly(last words may be incomplete). Did any one encounter with this
problem? What is wrong with me?
3) Could I send SMS in which extension of the sender is text not integer.
For example, i want to send an information SMS that this is a test network.
For this purpose i want to send an SMS from 'OpenBSC'. I set the extension
of the first subscriber in database as text and tried to send the SMS but
SMS wasn't delivered. What should i do?
4) Can i add SMS externally to SMS table of database?
Thanks.
Jason
9 Aug
9 Aug
6:48 p.m.
On 08/09/2010 11:07 PM, jason mercury wrote:
I have some questions:
1) When I start bsc_hack bsc_init.c first establishes OML link and initializes
the bts then it establishes RSL link and bts starts broadcasting. However, it
takes so much time to start the bts. Instead of this I want to do the
following: it establishes OML link at the beginning and only once, then when i
want to start broadcasting it establishes just the RSL link and bts will
start faster since i don't have to wait for OML link. What should be done for
this?
Well, if you just want to enable the RF you can search for rf_lock inside the
network section. It will bring down the RF. If you want to have faster
development roundtrips you want to look at the bsc_proxy. It will be inbetween
the BTS and the bsc_hack. There is one issue to be fixed though.. on the
second BTS bringup OpenBSC still thinks the bts is down and you can not
allocate any channel...
2) If i send one or two word messages from telnet interface it is okay. But if
i send a longer message the phone could't receive the end of the message
correctly(last words may be incomplete). Did any one encounter with this
problem? What is wrong with me?
Sorry, I am not so much into speculation. Please record a tcpdump, maybe
wireshark is even complaining about the message...
4) Can i add SMS externally to SMS table of database?
Yeah, the "blob" part in the row is meant to be a pre-encoded SMS, I don't
know if sending is enabled but as usual patches are welcome.
z.
10 Aug
10 Aug
5:42 a.m.
Responding to the only question that zecke did not respond to:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 06:07:28PM +0300, jason mercury wrote:
3) Could I send SMS in which extension of the sender
is text not integer.
no, this doesn't work with the current architecture. We also don't want
to work on a quick fix but rather "outsource" the full SMS processing into
a separate process. For that we need a clean API/interface/protocol how
the MSC-part of bsc_hack and that external process interact, and that again
will probably be based on our TCAP/MAP implementation, which is under active
development.
--
- 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)
6 Dec
6 Dec
8:37 a.m.
Harald Welte <laforge <at> gnumonks.org> writes:
Responding to the only question that zecke did not respond to:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 06:07:28PM +0300, jason mercury wrote:
I would like to ask you about the "quick fix" you mention when there is text in
the extension field. Does this fix affect the gsm_subscriber or the gsm_sms
structure? Is it something that affects only a few files
or it is necessary to make major modifications?
3) Could I send SMS in which extension of the
sender is text not integer.
no, this doesn't work with the current architecture. We also don't want
to work on a quick fix but rather "outsource" the full SMS processing into
a separate process. For that we need a clean API/interface/protocol how
the MSC-part of bsc_hack and that external process interact, and that again
will probably be based on our TCAP/MAP implementation, which is under active
development.
4161
days inactive
5011
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Harald Welte -
Holger Hans Peter Freyther -
jason mercury -
Maria Tzamtzi