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/osmocom-event-orga@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgOn Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Sylvain Munaut wrote:
> I think that although it'd be a nice hack, other solutions could be
> better and handle more use case :
> - Use of TCH/H with AMR-HR
Ah yes, I forgot that this hadn't been used yet.
> - Smaller cell
> - Multi TRX
ok, let's see what we can do on those two fronts.
> Also, there isn't PoE everywhere. This years they had quite a variety
> of switches, some with PoE, some with PoE+ and some with nothing so
> each time we either need to find power or we'd need to put injectors
> (which requires access to the patch room which would need more NOC
> coordination and even then AFAICT some of them are only accessible
> with the help of CCH staff).
Ok. My information was outdated then, while some of the last two years
the indication always was: All ports have PoE support.
In any case, for a single sysmoBTS 1002 without external PA/LNA, we can
clearly fit into the classic 15W PoE scheme and have no need for PoE+.
> I also wouldn't bother with nanoBTS at all, we haven't used them this
> year at all and it was really stable on day 2,3,4 once we fixed that
> nasty SMS bug.
Agreed. The nanoBTS was just in the box packed for 30C3 as it was still
in there from 29C3 ;)
> I also think multi-TRX could be fun (possibly using fairwaves HW), but
> we can run out of ARFCN easily.
I was thinking of ARFCN re-use. If the transmit power is low and we
have ultra-low-radius cells, then we should be able to have a frequency
re-use pattern. Of course not among immediate neighbors, but with one
in between. Also, I don't think that 8 ARFCN is all we could get from
the regulatory authority. I remember the DECT guard band being slightly
wider than that.
> It would be nice if we could sync the L1 of the BTS and use "shared
> ARFCN" where for eg one TS is used by one BTS and another for another
> BTS (dynamically of course so the capacity self-adapts).
I think that's unrealistic and requires a lot of effort on all layers,
including the BSC who currently has no view at all about that.
Regards,
Harald
--
- 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)