"NITB split" and implications for OsmoSGSN

[Harald Welte]

Hi Max,

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 04:36:51PM +0200, Max wrote:
> There's clearly big difference between split
> BSC/MSC and NITB (config files, support for SCCP-lite etc) which makes
> the transition rather lengthy.

Not necessarily lengthy, but non-trivial, for sure.

> What about SGSN and related stuff? It's been transitioned to libvlr at the time of
> split as well, but does this transition have any user-visible consequences?

I don't think it has been "transitioned to libvlr", has it?

OsmoSGSN has been supporting GSUP for years longer than OsmoMSC, so
there's not really any user-visible change/transition, other than that
of a different repository.  Or am I missing something?

> If not than we could transition gradually:
> * make SGSN build optional (--enable-gprs?) in openbsc repo

I wouldn't go for that incremental step, but got to removing the code
from openbsc.git altogether, like you suggested later in your mail below

> * start building OsmoSGSN from osmo-sgsn repo instead of openbsc (both
> .deb and OE)

I see no reason why not to.

> * disable SGSN build by default and announce that patches should be > made against new repo
> * remove gprs code from openbsc leaving placeholder readme with the link to new repo

I would suggest that we do both at once, as the code (aside from file
moving/renaming and #include fixups) is exactly the same.

> All the steps above are unrelated to BSC/MSC items so it could be done independently.

ACK.

-- 
- 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)