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.comHi Harald, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:10:50AM -0700, Tom Tsou wrote: >> There are still, however, benefits (i.e. cost and higher capacity >> support) to the multi-carrier approach on a single physical RF channel >> that make it worthwhile to support in mainline. > > I strongly agree. Multi-TRX is a feature for a single BTS with multiple > transceivers (and one of them, per sectors). Having those on separate > physical radio ports means you need to use external (expensive/lossy) > combiners to combine those signals before amplification and feeding the > transmit antenna. I completely agree that multi-arfcn support should be in the master. That said, I don't agree that it's always superior to existing approach we have with UmTRX/UmSITE where we use separate radio paths for different TRX. We couldn't achieve power efficiency and flexibility if we were using multi-arfcn approach. Not to mention that single ARFCN per TRX allows us to use simpler receivers. You also don't need a combiner if you want to route two TRX to a single antenna - X-Pol antennas are very popular and easy to get. And for more powerful BTS's (like 10W per channel) you can get real benefit from diversity receive, which again requires separate radio paths for both channels. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves, Inc. https://fairwaves.co