Dear GTP-interested folks,
I would love to somehow get towards some degree of unit testing (or even
"continuous integration") for teh kernel GTP code.
We currently have the original code in the kernel, we had some recent
small fixes and now are getting more patches into place. With
relatively few active users out there (and probably none of them in
production yet), it's particularly easy to introduce regressions while
working on the code. Also, having tested new code even against a
test set with limited covrage could help to get more confidence in new
patches and thus get them merged sooner.
Using tools like sgsnemu of OpenGGSN and the command line tools included
in libgtpnl, it should be possibel to cook up some scripts for testing.
Even the most basic set of tests would be an improvement over what we
have now. One could also think about pcap replay to test with
hand-crafted or real-world packets from other GTP implementations.
As much as I'd like to put something like this into place myself, I
don't think I will be able to work much on this in the near future. The
GTP module at this point is a pure hobby and contrary to some years ago
while I started it, I don't have any contract work in the GTP area at
this point, so other projects currently unfortunately get more
attention.
So in case somebody among the GTP-interested parties (Travelping, OAI,
...) would want to do something in terms of testing, I'd be more than
happy if somebody would step ahead. Otherwise it's all just vapourware
going to end up on my ever-growing TODO list :/
Also, if netdev folks have some ideas/pointers about possible
frameworks/tools for this kind of testing [it must exist for at least
some other kernel networking code?]: Please let me know. I'd be
interested to have a look if there's something that can be used as a
basis (starting network namespaces, sending/transmitting packets, test
case startup/teardown, ...)
My "old school" approach would have been to start one or multiple
user-mode-linux kernels (those that are to be tested), and then have
scripts that set up a gtp socket and gtp tunnels via the libgtp command
line tools, and throw packets at that. But I'm sure there must be
quite powerful frameworks for that kind of testing in the 21st century?
How do other tunneling implementations handle this?
Regards,
Harald
--
- 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)
Dear Osmocom Community,
[please respect the Reply-To and post all follow-up discussion to this
to openbsc(a)lists.osmocom.org, so we avoid having long threads
cross-posted to several mailing lists.]
Like every year in early December, it is time to discuss as schedule for
OsmoDevCon in the upcoming year.
Note: Ths is about OsmoDevCon, the more private meeting of developers,
*NOT* about OsmoCon, the public conference.
== When, Who, Where ==
I propose the following date for OsmoDevCon 2018:
April 20 - April 23rd, 2018
* Who: Active developers/contributors of Osmocom projects (as usual)
* Where: IN-Berlin, Berlin (as usual)
Please let me know ASAP if that proposed date works for everyone who'd
want to attend. We can still change it now, but I would want to nail
down the date pretty soon.
== Format ==
After the experiment of reducing from 4 to 3 days last year (due to
OsmoCon), we will again go for *four days* in 2018.
However, we should clearly divide the days in a way that e.g. "GSM/3G"
topics are on two days, while SDR+Other topics are on the other days, so
people not interested in some topics can skip one or two days, as
needed.
We could even divide it further like:
* 1 day 3GPP RAN (osmo-bts, osmo-bsc, osmo-pcu, virt_phy, fake_trx, ...)
* 1 day 3GPP CN (osmo-msc, osmo-hlr, osmo-sip-connector, nextepc, etc.)
* 2 days misc
Regards, and looking forward to meeting you [again] in 2018,
Harald
--
- 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)