Feature #3073
closedcell identifier list encoding/decoding for types including RNC
0%
Description
Some of the BSC_Tests.ttcn paging tests are failing:
MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_plmn_lac_rnc started. VirtMSC-M3UA(87)@nataraja: Warning: The maximum number of open file descriptors (1048576) is greater than FD_SETSIZE (1024). Ensure that Test Ports using Install_Handler do not try to wait for events of file descriptors with values greater than FD_SETSIZE (1024). (Current caller of Install_Handler is "SCTP_PORT") MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_plmn_lac_rnc finished. Verdict: fail reason: Timeout expecting { msg_disc := { msg_group := RSL_MDISC_CCHAN (6), transparent := false }, msg_type := RSL_MT_PAGING_CMD (21), ies := { { iei := ?, body := { chan_nr := { u := { ch0 := RSL_CHAN_NR_PCH_AGCH (18) }, tn := ? } } }, { iei := ?, body := { paging_group := ? } }, { iei := ?, body := { ms_identity := { len := ?, payload := ? } } }, * } } MC@nataraja: Test execution finished. MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_rnc started. VirtMSC-M3UA(94)@nataraja: Warning: The maximum number of open file descriptors (1048576) is greater than FD_SETSIZE (1024). Ensure that Test Ports using Install_Handler do not try to wait for events of file descriptors with values greater than FD_SETSIZE (1024). (Current caller of Install_Handler is "SCTP_PORT") MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_rnc finished. Verdict: fail reason: Timeout expecting { msg_disc := { msg_group := RSL_MDISC_CCHAN (6), transparent := false }, msg_type := RSL_MT_PAGING_CMD (21), ies := { { iei := ?, body := { chan_nr := { u := { ch0 := RSL_CHAN_NR_PCH_AGCH (18) }, tn := ? } } }, { iei := ?, body := { paging_group := ? } }, { iei := ?, body := { ms_identity := { len := ?, payload := ? } } }, * } } MC@nataraja: Test execution finished. MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_lac_rnc started. VirtMSC-M3UA(101)@nataraja: Warning: The maximum number of open file descriptors (1048576) is greater than FD_SETSIZE (1024). Ensure that Test Ports using Install_Handler do not try to wait for events of file descriptors with values greater than FD_SETSIZE (1024). (Current caller of Install_Handler is "SCTP_PORT") MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_lac_rnc finished. Verdict: fail reason: Timeout expecting { msg_disc := { msg_group := RSL_MDISC_CCHAN (6), transparent := false }, msg_type := RSL_MT_PAGING_CMD (21), ies := { { iei := ?, body := { chan_nr := { u := { ch0 := RSL_CHAN_NR_PCH_AGCH (18) }, tn := ? } } }, { iei := ?, body := { paging_group := ? } }, { iei := ?, body := { ms_identity := { len := ?, payload := ? } } }, * } } MC@nataraja: Test execution finished. MTC@nataraja: Test case TC_paging_imsi_nochan_lacs started.
Meanwhile, the BSC logs the following:
Sat Mar 17 20:47:47 2018 DMSC <0008> osmo_bsc_bssap.c:837 Rx MSC UDT BSSMAP PAGING Sat Mar 17 20:47:47 2018 DMSC <0008> osmo_bsc_bssap.c:467 Paging IMSI 001010000000012: Bogus Cell Identifier List length
pcap file attached. At least wireshark (whcih we know is not authoritative) correctly decodes the list
Files
Updated by stsp about 6 years ago
Support for the RNC types simply isn't implemented.
I recall we discussed that all UTRAN types were out of scope for our implementation, but maybe this was a misunderstanding?
Do we need support for all of the following or just CELL_IDENT_UTRAN_PLMN_LAC_RNC?
CELL_IDENT_UTRAN_PLMN_LAC_RNC = 8, CELL_IDENT_UTRAN_RNC = 9, CELL_IDENT_UTRAN_LAC_RNC = 10,
Updated by stsp about 6 years ago
The error message reported here is misleading. A generic parsing error should be logged instead.
See https://gerrit.osmocom.org/7383
Updated by stsp about 6 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
- Subject changed from cell identifier list decoder possibly wrong for types including RNC to cell identifier list encoding/decoding for types including RNC
Changing issue title and tracker from "bug" to "feature".
This was intentionally (though perhaps mistakenly) not implemented, so it's not a bug but a feature request.
Updated by stsp about 6 years ago
Should this be tracked under issue #2847 (currently closed) instead?
Updated by laforge about 6 years ago
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0000, stsp [REDMINE] wrote:
I recall we discussed that all UTRAN types were out of scope for our implementation, but maybe this was a misunderstanding?
no, it is correct. Maybe the test assumptions are simply wrong?
Updated by stsp about 6 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
Above change has been merged.