Hi Jonas,
Sorry, for later reply, I'm currently on vacation with almost no
internet access.
----- On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Jonas Bonn jonas@southpole.se wrote:
Hi Pablo,
On 02/06/2017 12:08 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
quoted
Hi Jonas,
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:12:31AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
quoted
The GTP-tunnel driver is explicitly GGSN-side as it searches for PDP
contexts based on the incoming packets _destination_ address. If we
want to write an SGSN, then we want to be idenityfing PDP contexts
based on _source_ address.
This patch adds a "flags" argument at GTP-link creation time to specify
whether we are on the GGSN or SGSN side of the tunnel; this flag is then
used to determine which part of the IP packet to use in determining
the PDP context.
So far the implementation that I saw in osmocom relies on userspace code
to tunnel data from ME to the SSGN/SGW running on the base station.
The data we get from GGSN -> SGSN needs to be places into a SN-PDU (via
SNDCP) when sending it to the BTS, right? So I wonder how this can be
useful given that we would need to see real IP packets coming to the
SSGN that we tunnel into GTP.
Fair enough. The use-case I am looking at involves PGW load-testing
where the simulated load is generated locally on the SGSN so it _is_
seeing IP packets and the SNDCP is left out altogether. Perhaps this is
too pathological to warrant messing with the upstream driver... I don't
know: the symmetry does not cost much even if it's of limited use.
Sounds reasonable. I'll review change with that in mind next week.
Andreas
Couldn't the SNDCP theoretically be a separate node and push IP packets
to the SGSN, thus making this useful? Perhaps it's a stretch...
/Jonas