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.orgHi Neels,
as Holger has indicated, we definitely need to keep BS-11 compatibility.
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:30:15PM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> Who is this Mister PCI anyway? ;)
I just Googled 'Siemens Abis MRPCI' and found an old question + response
I posted some years ago:
http://www.erlang.com/forum/erlang/thread.htx?thread=3168
I don't think it neccessarily needs to be sent at a very specific point
in time, but it needs to be sent after dedicated channel establishment
and before T_MSRFPCI expires. However, to put reasonable values into
the message, we need to know the classmark of the MS.
> The gsm48_handle_paging_resp() function leads me to another, more general
> question: often, there are two bts pointers around, namely the
> gsm_subscriber_connection->bts
> as well as the
> lchan->ts->trx->bts
> Are these typically/always/never expected to be the same bts struct?
I would assume that both pointers are the same in all cases.
> (In this function, both bts pointers are used, and I'd like to understand why.)
When I created OpenBSC, we only had the lchan->ts->trx->bts pointers,
and we had the subscriber point directly to the lchan. IIRC, Holger
later introduced the subscriber_connection when he created OsmoBSC.
So there might be some cases where a field was not removed but could be
removed?
The lchan/ts/trx/bts hierarchy is always present when a dedicated
channel is established. It is a very BSC-centric data structure.
The subscriber/subscriber_conn is a MSC-centric data structure. And
basically on the BSC side we have lchan's that are mapped over the A
interface to a subscriber_conn on the MSC side. Thus, the MSC shouldn't
referernce the lchan.
--
- 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)