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/.
246tnt at gmail.com 246tnt at gmail.com> We see this from different points of view. :) We're interested to show > possible > ways of OpenBTS interoperability with more conventional BTSes like ones > OpenBSC use and evaluate problems which will arise there. But we want to > show this with "flat IP" network instead of burdening OpenBTS with > A-bis interface. There is A-bis over IP of course :) Because just connecting them with asterisk just proves asterisk works, you still have two independent GSM network. A better integration would allow roaming between an openbsc/nanoBTS|BS11 and a OpenBTS. That would be pretty cool. Now that can be done either by OpenBTS having a Abis-over-IP IF (much like the nanoBTS), or by implementing inter-msc roaming in both (I think, didn't check deeper). I must admit I don't personally think it's ideal to have the BSC/MSC/HLR... layers duplicated in both OpenBTS/OpenBSC. It's pretty common in opensource to have several project 'doing the same thing' and it usually helps innovation and such but in this case there aren't thousands of developers with good GSM knowledge ... OTOH, OpenBTS and OpenBSC have made some choice that don't make a seamless reuse of code trivial (C vs C++, single vs multi thread). The licenses are compatible that's a start :) (v2 or later vs v3) Anyway, just my 2cents. Sylvain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20091007/5f4f22c9/attachment.htm>