Hi Andreas,
my kernel coding skills are getting a bit rusty (no pun intended), and
I'll think others on this list are more capable to do so. But let me at
least provide feedback from the "3GPP / GTP side":
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:37:08PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
> Having both GTPv0-U
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:30:51PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
>
>
> - On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:10 PM, pablo pa...@netfilter.org wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:37:08PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
> >> Having both GTPv0-U and GTPv1-U is not always desirable.
> >> Fallback from
- On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:10 PM, pablo pa...@netfilter.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:37:08PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
>> Having both GTPv0-U and GTPv1-U is not always desirable.
>> Fallback from GTPv1-U to GTPv0-U was depreciated from 3GPP
>> Rel-8 onwards. Post Rel-8
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:37:08PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
> Having both GTPv0-U and GTPv1-U is not always desirable.
> Fallback from GTPv1-U to GTPv0-U was depreciated from 3GPP
> Rel-8 onwards. Post Rel-8 implementation are discuraged
> from listening on the v0 port (see 3GPP TS 29.281,
Having both GTPv0-U and GTPv1-U is not always desirable.
Fallback from GTPv1-U to GTPv0-U was depreciated from 3GPP
Rel-8 onwards. Post Rel-8 implementation are discuraged
from listening on the v0 port (see 3GPP TS 29.281, Sect. 1).
A future change will completely decouple the sockets from the
