IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

Jim Forster <jim.forster@rangenetworks.com> Wed, 05 February 2014 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jim.forster@rangenetworks.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6811A00EF for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:06:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q14Mky7dvtFU for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0212.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A701A00F1 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2PR03MB404.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.91.149) by BL2PR03MB404.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.91.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:06:26 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB404.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.91.149]) by BL2PR03MB404.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.91.149]) with mapi id 15.00.0868.013; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:06:26 +0000
From: Jim Forster <jim.forster@rangenetworks.com>
To: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
Thread-Index: AQHPIj0OkF9riHfhQ0Se4gDBfVRQX5qmes6AgAAWF4A=
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:06:25 +0000
Message-ID: <6D9CF39E-90AC-4B46-A612-EC7A49D43D1B@rangenetworks.com>
References: <040E1A40-BC55-4CFC-834A-FC958DEFDE25@rangenetworks.com> <DFA8D92B-D483-465D-9C52-F79C74E5F8CF@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <DFA8D92B-D483-465D-9C52-F79C74E5F8CF@westhawk.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [50.22.74.2]
x-forefront-prvs: 01136D2D90
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(199002)(189002)(51704005)(377454003)(24454002)(77982001)(94946001)(86362001)(93516002)(83322001)(87266001)(63696002)(47976001)(49866001)(66066001)(54316002)(85306002)(54356001)(94316002)(82746002)(93136001)(83716003)(59766001)(74366001)(19580405001)(79102001)(76482001)(90146001)(46102001)(50986001)(47736001)(81816001)(31966008)(74662001)(76786001)(36756003)(56776001)(81686001)(87936001)(83072002)(2656002)(19580395003)(74876001)(81342001)(85852003)(92566001)(92726001)(76796001)(74502001)(74706001)(33656001)(69226001)(56816005)(4396001)(80022001)(80976001)(65816001)(51856001)(47446002)(81542001)(53806001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB404; H:BL2PR03MB404.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:50.22.74.2; FPR:6EB8FC1C.A61317C1.70F43644.4CC4C161.202C6; InfoNoRecordsA:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FEE7AC4C-A2E1-48A7-BE93-F1A1EB766D8C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: rangenetworks.com
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:06:31 -0000

On Feb 5, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:

>> When facing the Internet, OpenBTS is simply a SIP client.  However, to assure interoperability, there may be value in standardized behavior, including these issues:
> 
> It may be a SIP client, but in some ways it is a non-traditional one, a single BTS may well present as multiple phones (possibly thousands) like a giant ATA bank of old.

Yes, you're right.

>> * Should ICE be recommended or possibly be required for operation behind NATs?
> 
> My experience of trying to install these things is that NAT is a persistent problem, getting an internet connection into
> a village in the middle of nowhere is hard enough, expecting it to have an unfiltered public IP address is too much to ask.
> Fall back methods of running a VPN or using rfc5456 are both unsatisfactory. ICE will help with the RTP streams, 
> but we need to get the SIP flowing too - perhaps SIP over TCP or even websockets is a better fit?

Very good point!  It would be wonderful to have a good solution the NAT issues.  I don't have the experience to know what's the best approach for SIP.

> 
>> * What about BTS-BTS neighbor discovery
> 
> In order to handover a moving call to the next cell, a BTS need to know where the next cells are, at the moment
> openBTS uses a private protocol/config. It would be great if we could use a suitable pre-existing SIP mechanism and document that usage.

For instance?

  -- Jim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email