On 05/06/2015 10:29, Alex J Lennon wrote:
On 05/06/2015 01:48, Denis Kenzior wrote:
Hi Marcel,
The actual MCC and MNC assignments are ITU T E.212 and the (U)SIM
Header of the ICCID is ITU T E.118 document.
And as a side note, the (U)SIM Header is between 6 and 7 digits. The
MNC is
On 05/06/2015 01:48, Denis Kenzior wrote:
Hi Marcel,
The actual MCC and MNC assignments are ITU T E.212 and the (U)SIM
Header of the ICCID is ITU T E.118 document.
And as a side note, the (U)SIM Header is between 6 and 7 digits. The
MNC is between 2 and 3 digits.
So in theory E212
Hi Alex,
Ordering should have nothing to do with it.
Yes, the ordering is relevant. We (like other ofono users I suspect)
have to allow multiple APNs or the automatic provisioning process fails.
Then, the first context found in serviceproviders.xml is what is used by
default for the
Hi Alex,
Ordering should have nothing to do with it.
Yes, the ordering is relevant. We (like other ofono users I suspect)
have to allow multiple APNs or the automatic provisioning process fails.
Then, the first context found in serviceproviders.xml is what is used by
default for the
Hi Marcel,
The actual MCC and MNC assignments are ITU T E.212 and the (U)SIM Header of the
ICCID is ITU T E.118 document.
And as a side note, the (U)SIM Header is between 6 and 7 digits. The MNC is
between 2 and 3 digits.
So in theory E212 should be enough. Each operator (MVNO or
Hi Alex,
As I come to investigate this, I find I am concerned about using the
Service Provider Name as I can't see any registry for those names, it's
free text for display purposes, so I assume it is at least possible it
might change without warning,
whereas there does seem to be a registry
On 04/06/2015 23:59, Alex J Lennon wrote:
On 04/06/2015 23:03, Denis Kenzior wrote:
Hi Alex,
Ordering should have nothing to do with it.
Yes, the ordering is relevant. We (like other ofono users I suspect)
have to allow multiple APNs or the automatic provisioning process fails.
Then,
On 04/06/2015 23:03, Denis Kenzior wrote:
Hi Alex,
Ordering should have nothing to do with it.
Yes, the ordering is relevant. We (like other ofono users I suspect)
have to allow multiple APNs or the automatic provisioning process fails.
Then, the first context found in
Hi Alex,
Ordering should have nothing to do with it.
Yes, the ordering is relevant. We (like other ofono users I suspect)
have to allow multiple APNs or the automatic provisioning process fails.
Then, the first context found in serviceproviders.xml is what is used by
default for the
Hi Alex,
On 06/03/2015 07:07 AM, Alex J Lennon wrote:
Hi,
A request for some advice.
We're having trouble provisioning APNs for SIMs from certain Telcos, and
it seems to be because of the ordering of providers in serviceproviders.xml
Ordering should have nothing to do with it.
Vodafone
Hi Denis,
On 04/06/2015 21:52, Denis Kenzior wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 06/03/2015 07:07 AM, Alex J Lennon wrote:
Hi,
A request for some advice.
We're having trouble provisioning APNs for SIMs from certain Telcos, and
it seems to be because of the ordering of providers in
serviceproviders.xml
Hi,
A request for some advice.
We're having trouble provisioning APNs for SIMs from certain Telcos, and
it seems to be because of the ordering of providers in serviceproviders.xml
Vodafone and O2 are cases in point. SIMs from either of those two
telcos, used in the UK, will fail to default to
12 matches
Mail list logo
