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/.
Alexander Chemeris alexander.chemeris at gmail.comOn Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote: > Compare: > > rach access control classes 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 > > with: > > rach access control class 1 1 > rach access control class 2 1 > rach access control class 5 0 > rach access control class 5 1 > rach access control class 8 1 > rach access control class 13 1 > rach access control class 14 1 > > I know which I find clearer, and easier to manipulate with a minimum > of unwanted side effects. > > PS. Did you notice the error in my 'class' commands? > PPS. Did you notice the error in your 'classes' command? Ok, now it makes sense. I think we could even drop the last (0|1) and make it like that: rach access control class barred 1 rach access control class barred 2 rach access control class barred 5 (default being not barred) OTOH I like the idea that you could change value without removing a whole string, so may be make it even more user-friendly: rach access control class 1 barred rach access control class 2 barred rach access control class 5 allowed The idea is that "1" meaning "barred" is counter-intuitive and may lead to wrong setting. Even I will forget abut the trick in a couple of months. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио http://fairwaves.ru