Project

General

Profile

Feature #2281

allow multiple MGCP-GW per MSC

Added by neels over 2 years ago. Updated over 2 years ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
05/22/2017
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Resolution:

Description

In the 3G implementation so far, the OsmoMSC has one MGCP-GW configured; there cannot be more (yet). In the AoIP 2G picture so far, the idea is to have one MGCP-GW per OsmoBSC. It is probably faster and simpler to go for the topology of one MGCP-GW per MSC rather than BSC. But is that sufficient?

If one per MSC, tell the BSC where its MGCP-GW is (vty config?)

If one per BSC, implement a way how the MSC keeps several MGCP-GW peers and knows which BSC needs which MGCP-GW. Also needed for Iu connections.


Related issues

Related to OsmoMSC - Feature #2289: implement AoverIP (OsmoMSC side)Closed05/24/2017

Related to OsmoNITB - Feature #1712: 3G VoiceClosed05/14/2016

History

#1 Updated by neels over 2 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (Osmocom CNI Developers)

#2 Updated by neels over 2 years ago

  • Related to Feature #2289: implement AoverIP (OsmoMSC side) added

#3 Updated by neels over 2 years ago

#4 Updated by dexter over 2 years ago

I do not see any problem here so far. There might be some pitfalls with several MGCPGW instances on the same machine (VTY-Ports etc...).

Each BSC will have one MGCPGW. However, the MSC will not be aware of that. It will send the IP/Port of its own MGCPGW via the assignment command to the BSC. The BSC will then negotiate that IP/Port to its private MGCPGW. The IP/Port which is returned then is handed back to the MSC via the assignment complete message. The MSC will have to connect that IP/Port combination then with its own MGCPGW. In parallel, the BSC will connect the BTS via IPACC to the other side of its private MGCPGW.

From the topological perspective, the private MGCPGW of the BSC is invisible to the MSC. The only difference will be that the MSC side of the network will transmit its RTP streams with the MGCPGW of the BSC instead with the BTS directly.

#5 Updated by laforge over 2 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Rejected

I agre with dexter here, not sure why the MSC would care at all if there are MGW's at the BSC or not. This is unrelated to the fact of the MSC having (and controlling) a MGW itself.

Also available in: Atom PDF

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 48.8 MB)