On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:58:39PM +0100, Pau Espin Pedrol wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/12/17 14:51, robert wrote: > > I am using an old version of osmo-nitb, I installed it maybe a year > > earlier. I will consider updating my setup. Should I go with a newer > > version of osmo-nitb or should I use the new packages (OsmoMSC, OsmoHLR …) ? > > > > As far as I know, almost all the features present in osmo-nitb are supported > in new packages, and osmo-nitb is mostly discontinued nowadays in favor the > the new packages. That may help you take a decision regarding this matter.
Here is a quick list of features not present in the split components that come to mind: - no subscriber-create-on-demand, i.e. you have to explicitly enter all subscribers' IMSIs in the HLR *before* they are accepted by the network. The database will not grow automatically (which robert may like). https://osmocom.org/issues/2542 - in osmo-nitb we could easily log/query which BTS and which timeslot a subscriber was served on. Now you need to ask (each) BSC for that and correlate phone number to TMSI manually. We may want to add Osmocom-specific TLVs to the A interface in order to communicate that information to OsmoMSC and re-enable the old feature set. Related: - we no longer support Osmocom specific TLVs in SMPP messages, which used to provide information only available on the BSC layer. https://osmocom.org/issues/2390 Things you *get* from the split repositories: - same subscriber database for CS and PS (OsmoHLR). - no blocking of the core network while accessing the db = more scalable. - support for 3G. - support for Milenage (UMTS authentication). - support of a true A interface between BSC and MSC. - you're set up for the future: new development focuses here, hardly any effort will be spent on OsmoNITB (without explicit requests and funding) ~N
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
