https://projects.osmocom.org/
https://projects.osmocom.org/favicon.ico?1664741409
2016-06-14T23:53:56Z
Open Source Mobile Communications
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=1610
2016-06-14T23:53:56Z
laforge
<ul></ul><p>laforge wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It probably makes sense to pass BER, Link Quality and RSSI up into the common part via L1SAP, and<br />have the thersholds implemented there. This ensures uniform behavior accross hardware.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>this is true at least for osmo-bts-{sysmo,octphy,lc15} where we get both BER and RSSI. Not sure how osmo-bts-trx will fit in.</p>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=1640
2016-06-22T22:12:51Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>Assignee</strong> changed from <i>msuraev</i> to <i>laforge</i></li></ul>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=1701
2016-06-27T17:03:38Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>File</strong> <a href="/attachments/2355">0001-RACH-decoding-Use-BER-threshold-for-RACH-ghost-detec.patch</a> <a class="icon-only icon-download" title="Download" href="/attachments/download/2355/0001-RACH-decoding-Use-BER-threshold-for-RACH-ghost-detec.patch">0001-RACH-decoding-Use-BER-threshold-for-RACH-ghost-detec.patch</a> added</li><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>0</i> to <i>30</i></li></ul><p>proposed patch in attachment, untested so far.</p>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=1702
2016-06-27T17:05:41Z
laforge
<ul></ul>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=1721
2016-07-01T15:38:02Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>In Progress</i></li></ul><p>I've done quite an extensive test series and I cannot reproduce the issue.</p>
I've used a RF pattern generator and tested with
<ul>
<li>a PN23 sequence of pseudo-random bits modulated at GSM bitrate</li>
<li>AWGN at 270kHz and 1MHz bandwidth</li>
<li>both over a range of -110 dBm to -30 dBm</li>
</ul>
<p>osmo-bts-sysmo did not report a single ghost RACH in about one hour of testing.</p>
<p>in /dev/rtfifo/dsp_trace, we could see RACH being detected, but none of them reached the existing min_qual_rach threshold in osmo-bts-sysmo:<br /><pre>
[3200]____[279612:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-75.8 dBm, 49 qbits, LQ = -4.2819, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3201]____[279769:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-74.7 dBm, -8 qbits, LQ = -3.8764, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1111 (4/36)]____
[3202]____[279780:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-76.4 dBm, 35 qbits, LQ = -5.3870, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.2500 (9/36)]____
[3203]____[279893:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-74.6 dBm, 64 qbits, LQ = -5.0313, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3204]____[279911:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 0]____[-76.3 dBm, 87 qbits, LQ = -5.0002, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3205]____[279934:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 0]____[-76.0 dBm, -6 qbits, LQ = -5.3354, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3206]____[280046:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-76.0 dBm, 11 qbits, LQ = -1.5729, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1111 (4/36)]____
[3207]____[280166:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-74.8 dBm, 87 qbits, LQ = -7.0291, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3208]____[280315:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-71.0 dBm, 72 qbits, LQ = -6.1674, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3209]____[280632:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-63.4 dBm, 60 qbits, LQ = -1.6252, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3210]____[280636:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-61.4 dBm, 60 qbits, LQ = -7.9217, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1667 (6/36)]____
[3211]____[280774:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-61.5 dBm, 59 qbits, LQ = -4.0441, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3212]____[280891:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-59.6 dBm, 34 qbits, LQ = -6.3125, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3213]____[280931:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-58.6 dBm, 2 qbits, LQ = -3.8033, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3214]____[280936:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-58.5 dBm, 45 qbits, LQ = -3.7295, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3215]____[280981:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-58.4 dBm, 48 qbits, LQ = -5.2272, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1111 (4/36)]____
[3216]____[281142:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-56.1 dBm, 9 qbits, LQ = -5.7374, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1111 (4/36)]____
[3217]____[281208:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-57.7 dBm, 22 qbits, LQ = -1.4843, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3218]____[281464:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-53.3 dBm, 11 qbits, LQ = -5.3268, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3219]____[281636:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-46.3 dBm, 80 qbits, LQ = -5.1819, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3220]____[281677:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 0]____[-45.4 dBm, 10 qbits, LQ = -5.4181, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3221]____[281694:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-44.2 dBm, 4 qbits, LQ = -5.4208, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3222]____[281789:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-42.4 dBm, 27 qbits, LQ = -1.6029, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3223]____[281794:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-42.5 dBm, 70 qbits, LQ = -1.5491, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1111 (4/36)]____
[3224]____[281843:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 0]____[-40.8 dBm, 2 qbits, LQ = -6.7427, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3225]____[281904:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-39.8 dBm, 60 qbits, LQ = -7.0963, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3226]____[281909:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 0]____[-39.7 dBm, 88 qbits, LQ = -7.3934, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3227]____[282098:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-33.1 dBm, 56 qbits, LQ = -3.7389, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1111 (4/36)]____
[3228]____[282163:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-33.7 dBm, 45 qbits, LQ = -4.1827, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3229]____[282207:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-30.9 dBm, -1 qbits, LQ = -5.1973, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3230]____[282212:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-31.1 dBm, 42 qbits, LQ = -5.1664, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3231]____[282217:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-31.1 dBm, 85 qbits, LQ = -5.2099, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3232]____[282258:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 0]____[-32.2 dBm, 15 qbits, LQ = -5.4180, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
[3233]____[282304:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-30.8 dBm, 20 qbits, LQ = -5.9130, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3234]____[282370:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-32.5 dBm, 32 qbits, LQ = -1.6946, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1389 (5/36)]____
[3235]____[282454:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 2]____[-31.1 dBm, 56 qbits, LQ = -6.7238, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1667 (6/36)]____
[3236]____[282512:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-32.1 dBm, 32 qbits, LQ = -4.1076, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1667 (6/36)]____
[3237]____[282517:0]____[L1]____[RX]____[RACH]____[ACCESS TYPE 1]____[-32.4 dBm, 75 qbits, LQ = -4.0598, BSIC = 3F, BER = 0.1944 (7/36)]____
</pre></p>
<p>So we need to understand how to reproduce the bug first.</p>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=3325
2017-03-10T21:27:14Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>In Progress</i> to <i>New</i></li><li><strong>Assignee</strong> deleted (<del><i>laforge</i></del>)</li></ul>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=4175
2017-05-30T15:32:25Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>Assignee</strong> set to <i>daniel</i></li></ul>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=6493
2017-12-03T10:41:21Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>Assignee</strong> changed from <i>daniel</i> to <i>laforge</i></li></ul>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=7876
2018-02-26T14:22:54Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>30</i> to <i>80</i></li></ul><p>A BER based RACH threshold has now been introduced as part of the <a class="external" href="https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/6933/">https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/6933/</a> patch. On the positive side, all BTS/PHY models should now have the same behavior in terms of RACH detection threshold.</p>
OsmoBTS - Feature #1752: Improve RACH detection / rejection
https://projects.osmocom.org/issues/1752?journal_id=8492
2018-03-24T14:49:24Z
laforge
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>80</i> to <i>100</i></li></ul>