This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Sylvain Munaut 246tnt at gmail.com> > I have a nanobts unit 139 with a software that somehow only accepts GSM
> FR
> > (and not EFR), unless I also send the RTP payload type IE (
> > RSL_IE_IPAC_RTP_PAYLOAD ) in the CRCX and MDCX messages. (and only the
> "RTP
> > payload type" IE, the "RTP payload type 2" has no effect I can see).
>
> thanks for pointing this out. Now the question is, would that affect the
> later
> models? Do you have any later models to test? If later models / versions
> don't mind the RTP Payload (non-type-2), we can jusy simply always use
> that.
>
I tested with a later version othe 139 software and including the RTP
payload type IE works fine. I don't have any other units (EDGE ones) so I
can't test. But I just posted the patch so someone could test ...
>
> > For GSM FR the RFC specifies PT=3 but for HR/EFR/AMR, they are dynamic
> and
> > must be chosed in the 96-127 range.
> > AFAIK, we could just use a static mapping in openbsc or load that from
> the
> > config. Does anyone sees a downside to that ?
>
> static mapping is fine with me, patches welcome.
>
Patch sent on the ML.
Sylvain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20091220/2e838085/attachment.htm>