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-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org/.
Andreas Schultz aschultz at tpip.netHi Tom, ----- On Sep 2, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Tom Herbert tom at quantonium.net wrote: > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:27:22PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> > * nwGTPv2c which is originally from https://sourceforge.net/projects/nwepc/ >>> > and has also been used in OAI at >>> > https://gitlab.eurecom.fr/oai/openair-cn/tree/master/SRC/GTPV2-C/nwgtpv2c-0.11 >>> > >>> I looked at that, it's pretty minimal for our purposed. >> >> Welcom to the (cellular) telecom world. Feels like the state of Linux in the >> mid-1990ies: Some minimal FOSS implementations exist, but most of the work >> still >> has to be done. We've been trying hard since 2008 inside Osmocom, but as >> indicated >> so far no 4G related contributions (financially or in terms of code). >> >>> My user requires GTPv2 (i.e. this is for 4G network). My interest here >>> is really to do development on the user plane, >> >> Are we talking about FOSS development here? >> > Yes. > >>> but we need a GTP-C to at least prototype something for their network. >> >> What exactly do you want to prototype? Which of the many GTPv2-C >> transactions do you need? I guess if you can deal e.g. without >> relocation, then the complexity is quite reduced. >> > I need the control plane to be able to develop the data path. The > ultimate goal of our project is to an implement and ILA data path; > that is use it instead of GTP-U tunneling but still have the GTP-C > control plane. The support we need starts out simple, just create a > data path and demonstrate the benefits (maybe as much that is in > nwgtpv2). As we proceed, obviously we'll want to prototype more of the > capabilities such as handover. That being said, this is just a > prototype for now! GTPv2 control plane including GGSN/PGW handover works in erGW [1]. A more ready to run packaged solution it at [2]. It does support the kernel module for the data path and I would be willing to help with getting a GGSN/PGW up and running, and implement the IPv6 support in the control path (Erlang world). I don't have the time right now to get into the data path implementation. > How much effort do you think it would be to implement GTPv2-C? As always, the problems are in the details and they are not obvious from reading the specification. >>> Also, we'd like the kernel support for GTP-U (including IPv6 which I >>> suppose is still outstanding). >> >> correct. We've just added user-plane IPv6 support to openggsn in >> userspace, v6 user plane (or even transport plane) in kernel GTP is >> still another area looking for contributions. >> > What is the difference between user plane and transport plane? Control plane of GTPv2, data/transport plane is GTPv1. There is no GTPv2 for the data/transport plane. > I'm looking at the GTP kernel code, it seems to be pretty > straightforward to add IPv6, and the common offloads and I could look > at that once I figure out a solution for using GTP-C v2. The tricky parts might be the handling to IPv6 address delegations. But I haven't really looked at it, yet. Regards Andreas [1]: https://github.com/travelping/ergw [2]: https://github.com/travelping/ergw-gtp-c-node