2013/7/25 Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se>
Ivan Kluchnikov wrote:
This is new version of patch for review and
merge:
- more user-friendly interface for command:
rach access-control-class 2 barred
rach access-control-class 11 allowed
Yes, much better than before, but perhaps spend the half hour it
takes to write that %d-%d parser using sscanf?
You are welcome :)
If you implement %d-%d parser, I will change style of this VTY command.
+++ b/openbsc/src/libbsc/bsc_vty.c
..
@@ -2059,6 +2067,51 @@
DEFUN(cfg_bts_rach_ec_allowed,
cfg_bts_rach_ec_allowed_cmd,
return CMD_SUCCESS;
}
+DEFUN(cfg_bts_rach_ac_class, cfg_bts_rach_ac_class_cmd,
+ "rach access-control-class (0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|11|12|13|14|15)
(barred|allowed)",
+ RACH_STR
+ "Set access control class\n"
+ "Access control class 0\n"
+ "Access control class 1\n"
+ "Access control class 2\n"
+ "Access control class 3\n"
+ "Access control class 4\n"
+ "Access control class 5\n"
+ "Access control class 6\n"
+ "Access control class 7\n"
+ "Access control class 8\n"
+ "Access control class 9\n"
+ "Access control class 11 for PLMN use\n"
+ "Access control class 12 for security services\n"
+ "Access control class 13 for public utilities (e.g. water/gas
suppliers)\n"
+ "Access control class 14 for
emergency services\n"
+ "Access control class 15 for PLMN staff\n"
+ "barred to use access control class\n"
+ "allowed to use access control class\n")
+{
Is that long array of strings correct?
I think, yes, because it works.
Do you know other way to do it?
//Peter
--
Regards,
Ivan Kluchnikov.
http://fairwaves.ru