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/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgOn Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:43:18PM +0200, Holger Freyther wrote:
> > what do you mean by 'low level'? Their intent really is to send
> > arbitrary L3 messages in L2, even on strange SAPIs or on an unexpected
> > logical channel (SACCH vs. SDCCH).
>
> When looking at your proposed RSL like messages I was able (at least I
> thought/think so) to map it 1:1 to GSM0808 primitives and then had the feeling
> to implement most of GSM0808 at a lower level.
I agree it's a lower level in the network hierarchy, but not really a
lower level in the protocol stack... both interfaces facilitate the
establishment and communication via layer2.
It might be the case that since paging / response is included in 08.08,
we have a little bit less extra (non-standard) work than with the RSL
approach.
> I had a bypass on the MSC in mind. E.g. one would send a PAGING REQUEST
> messages to the MSC, it would be forwarded to the BSC, then we would get a
> Complete Layer3 Information with the CM Service Request and then we could
> decide that for the type of XYZ, we want to hand out this communication to
> another app (okay, I made the CM Service Request up and didn't have that in
> mind today morning).
What I'm wondering about is: Do we really get the full power/control if
we want it? Isn't the RR always handled in the BSC with no way around
and only MM/CC/SMS/SS forwarded to the MSC on 08.08?
> > The other question then is: Why 08.08? Wouldn't the logical consequence
> > be to implement actual MAP (like the E interface between MSC and MSC in
> > a real gsm network)?
>
> Good point, I have no idea about the protocol and the way it is working.
I've done a careful peek at 09.01 and 09.02. While it might be flexible
enough to do what we want, implementing MAP only partially is more than
an entire project in itself. So I'd rather not open pandora's box as of
now.
Which leaves us with the RSL or the 08.08 based approach. I'm still
undecided :/
--
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)