LaForge's home page (Open Source Mobile Communications)

Sometimes software development is a struggle

Harald Welte — Sat, 28 Sep 2019 16:00:00 GMT

I'm currently working on the firmware for a new project, an 8-slot smart card reader. I will share more about the architecture and design ideas behind this project soon, but today I'll simply write about how hard it sometimes is to actually get software development done. Seemingly trivial things suddenly take ages. I guess everyone writing code knows this, but today I felt like I had to share this story.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

As I'm quite convinced of test-driven development these days, I don't want to simply write firmware code that can only execute in the target, but I'm actually working on a USB CCID (USb Class for Smart Card readers) stack which is hardware-independent, and which can also run entirely in userspace on a Linux device with USB gadget (device) controller. This way it's much easier to instrument, trace, introspect and test the code base, and tests with actual target board hardware are limited to those functions provided by the board.

So the current architecture for development of the CCID implementation looks like this:

Implement the USB CCID device using FunctionFS (I did this some months ago, and in fact developing this was a similarly much more time consuming task than expected, maybe I find time to expand on that)
Attach this USB gadget to a virtual USB bus + host controller using the Linux kernel dummy_hcd module
Talk to a dumb phoenix style serial SIM card reader attached to a USB UART, which is connected to an actual SIM card (or any smart card, for that matter)

By using a "stupid" UART based smart card reader, I am very close to the target environment on a Cortex-M microcntroller, where I also have to talk to a UART and hence implement all the beauty of ISO 7816-3. Hence, the test / mock / development environment is as close as possible to the target environment.

So I implemented the various bits and pieces and ended up at a point where I wanted to test. And I'm not getting any response from the UART / SIM card at all. I check all my code, add lots of debugging, play around with various RTS / DTR / ... handshake settings (which sometimes control power) - no avail.

In the end, after many hours of trial + error I actually inserted a different SIM card and finally, I got an ATR from the card. In more than 20 years of working with smart cards and SIM cards, this is the first time I've actually seen a SIM card die in front of me, with no response whatsoever from the card.

Chapter 2 - Linux is broken

Anyway, the next step was to get the T=0 protocol of ISO 7816-3 going. Since there is only one I/O line between SIM card and reader for both directions, the protocol is a half-duplex protocol. This is unlike "normal" RS232-style UART communication, where you have a separate Rx and Tx line.

On the hardware side, this is most often implemented by simply connecting both the Rx and Tx line of the UART to the SIM I/O pin. This in turn means that you're always getting an echo back for every byte you write.

One could discard such bytes, but then I'm targeting a microcontroller, which should be running eight cards in parallel, at preferably baud-rates up to ~1 megabit speeds, so having to read and discard all those bytes seems like a big waste of resources.

The obvious solution around that is to disable the receiver inside the UART before you start transmitting, and re-enable it after you're done transmitting. This is typically done rather easily, as most UART registers in hardware provide some way to selectively enable transmitter and/or receiver independently.

But since I'm working in Linux userspace in my development environment: How do I approximate this kind of behavior? At least the older readers of this blog will remember something called the CREAD flag of termios. Clearing that flag will disable the receiver. Back in the 1990ies, I did tons of work with serial ports, and I remembered there was such a flag.

So I implement my userspace UART backend and somehow it simply doesn't want to work. Again of course I assume I must be doing something wrong. I'm using strace, I'm single-stepping through code - no avail.

In the end, it turns out that I've just found a bug in the Linux kernel, one that appears to be there at least ever since the git history of linux-2.6.git started. Almost all USB serial device drivers do not implement CREAD, and there is no sotware fall-back implemented in the core serial (or usb-serial) handling that would discard any received bytes inside the kernel if CREAD is cleared. Interestingly, the non-USB serial drivers for classic UARTs attached to local bus, PCI, ... seem to support it.

The problem would be half as much of a problem if the syscall to clear CREAD would actually fail with an error. But no, it simply returns success but bytes continue to be received from the UART/tty :/

So that's the second big surprise of this weekend...

Chapter 3 - Again a broken card?

So I settle for implementing the 'receive as many characters as you wrote' work-around. Once that is done, I continue to test the code. And what happens? Somehow my state machine (implemented using osmo-fsm, of course) for reading the ATR (code found here) somehow never wants to complete. The last byte of the ATR always is missing. How can that be?

Well, guess what, the second SIM card I used is sending a broken, non-spec compliant ATR where the header indicates 9 historical bytes are present, but then in reality only 8 bytes are sent by the card.

Of course every reader has a timeout at that point, but that timeout was not yet implemented in my code, and I also wasn't expecting to hit that timeout.

So after using yet another SIM card (now a sysmoUSIM-SJS1, not sure why I didn't even start with that one), it suddenly works.

After a weekend of detours, each of which I would not have assumed at all before, I finally have code that can obtain the ATR and exchange T=0 TPDUs with cards. Of course I could have had that very easily if I wanted (we do have code in pySim for this, e.g.) but not in the architecture that is as close as it gets to the firmware environment of the microcontroller of my target board.

Fernvale Kits - Lack of Interest - Discount

Harald Welte — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 16:00:00 GMT

Back in December 2014 at 31C3, bunnie and xobs presented about their exciting Fernvale project, how they reverse engineered parts of the MT6260 ARM SoC, which also happens to contain a Mediatek GSM baseband.

Thousands (at least hundreds) of people have seen that talk live. To date, 2506 people (or AIs?) have watched the recordings on youtube, 4859 more people on media.ccc.de.

Given that Fernvale was the closest you could get to having a hackable baseband processor / phone chip, I expected at least as much interest into this project as we received four years earlier with OsmocomBB.

As a result, in early 2015, sysmocom decided to order 50 units of Fernvale DVT2 evaluation kits from bunnie, and to offer them in the sysmocom webshop to ensure the wider community would be able to get the boards they need for research into widely available, inexpensive 2G baseband chips.

This decision was made purely for the perceived benefit of the community: Make an exciting project available for anyone. With that kind of complexity and component density, it's unlikely anyone would ever solder a board themselves. So somebody has to build some and make it available. The mark-up sysmocom put on top of bunnie's manufacturing cost was super minimal, only covering customs/import/shipping fees to Germany, as well as minimal overhead for packing/picking and accounting.

Now it's almost four years after bunnie + xobs' presentation, and of those 50 Fernvale boards, we still have 34 (!) units in stock. That means, only 16 people on this planet ever had an interest in playing with what at the time I thought was one of the most exciting pieces of equipment to play with.

So we lost somewhere on the order of close to 3600 EUR in dead inventory, for something that never was supposed to be a business anyway. That sucks, but I still think it was worth it.

In order to minimize the losses, sysmocom has now discounted the boards and reduced the price from EUR 110 to to EUR 58.82 (excluding VAT). I have very limited hope that this will increase the amount of interest in this project, but well, you got to try :)

In case you're thinking "oh, let's wait some more time, until they hand them out for free", let me tell you: If money is the issue that prevents you from playing with a Fernvale, then please contact me with the details about what you'd want to do with it, and we can see about providing them for free or at substantially reduced cost.

In the worst case, it was ~ 3600 EUR we could have invested in implementing more Osmocom software, which is sad. But would I do it again if I saw a very exciting project? Definitely!

The lesson learned here is probably that even a technically very exciting project backed by world-renowned hackers like bunnie doesn't mean that anyone will actually ever do anything with it, unless they get everything handed on a silver plate, i.e. all the software/reversing work is already done for them by others. And that actually makes me much more sad than the loss of those ~ 3600 EUR in sysmocom's balance sheet.

I also feel even more sorry for bunnie + xobs. They've invested time, money and passion into a project that nobody really seemed to want to get involved and/or take further. ("nobody" is meant figuratively. I know there were/are some enthusiasts who did pick up. I'm talking about the big picture). My condolences to bunnie + xobs!

Wireshark dissector for 3GPP CBSP - traces wanted!

Harald Welte — Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:00:00 GMT

I recently was reading 3GPP TS 48.049, the specification for the CBSP (Cell Broadcast Service Protocol), which is the protocol between the BSC (Base Station Controller) and the CBC (Cell Broadcast Centre). It is how the CBC according to spec is instructing the BSCs to broadcast the various cell broadcast messages to their respective geographic scope.

While OsmoBTS and OsmoBSC do have support for SMSCB on the CBCH, there is no real interface in OsmoBSC yet on how any external application would instruct it tot send cell broadcasts. The only existing interface is a VTY command, which is nice for testing and development, but hardly a scalable solution.

So I was reading up on the specs, discovered CBSP and thought one good way to get familiar with it is to write a wireshark dissector for it. You can find the result at https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/29745/

Now my main problem is that as usual there appear to be no open source implementations of this protocol, so I cannot generate any traces myself. More surprising is that it's not even possible to find any real-world CBSP traces out there. So I'm facing a chicken-and-egg problem. I can only test / verify my wireshark dissector if I find some traces.

So if you happen to have done any work on cell broadcast in 2G network and have a CBSP trace around (or can generate one): Please send it to me, thanks!

Alternatively, you can of course also use the patch linked above, build your own wireshark from scratch, test it and provide feedback. Thanks in either case!

OsmoCon 2018 CfP closes on 2018-05-30

Harald Welte — Thu, 24 May 2018 16:00:00 GMT

One of the difficulties with OsmoCon2017 last year was that almost nobody submitted talks / discussions within the deadline, early enough to allow for proper planning.

This lad to the situation where the sysmocom team had to come up with a schedule/agenda on their own. Later on much after the CfP deadline,people then squeezed in talks, making the overall schedule too full.

It is up to you to avoid this situation again in 2018 at OsmoCon2018 by submitting your talk RIGHT NOW. We will be very strict regarding late submissions. So if you would like to shape the Agenda of OsmoCon 2018, this is your chance. Please use it.

We will have to create a schedule soon, as [almost] nobody will register to a conference unless the schedule is known. If there's not sufficient contribution in terms of CfP response from the wider community, don't complain later that 90% of the talks are from sysmocom team members and only about the Cellular Network Infrastructure topics.

You have been warned. Please make your CfP submission in time at https://pretalx.sysmocom.de/osmocon2018/cfp before the CfP deadline on 2018-05-30 23:59 (Europe/Berlin)

OsmoDevCon 2018 retrospective

Harald Welte — Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:00:00 GMT

One week ago, the annual Osmocom developer meeting (OsmoDevCon 2018) concluded after four long and intense days with old and new friends (schedule can be seen here).

It was already the 7th incarnation of OsmoDevCon, and I have to say that it's really great to see the core Osmocom community come together every year, to share their work and experience with their fellow hackers.

Ever since the beginning we've had the tradition that we look beyond our own projects. In 2012, David Burgess was presenting on OpenBTS. In 2016, Ismael Gomez presented about srsUE + srsLTE, and this year we've had the pleasure of having Sukchan Kim coming all the way from Korea to talk to us about his nextepc project (a FOSS implementation of the Evolved Packet Core, the 4G core network).

What has also been a regular "entertainment" part in recent years are the field trip reports to various [former] satellite/SIGINT/... sites by Dimitri Stolnikov.

All in all, the event has become at least as much about the people than about technology. It's a community of like-minded people that to some part are still working on joint projects, but often work independently and scratch their own itch - whether open source mobile comms related or not.

After some criticism last year, the so-called "unstructured" part of OsmoDevCon has received more time again this year, allowing for exchange among the participants irrespective of any formal / scheduled talk or discussion topic.

In 2018, with the help of c3voc, for the first time ever, we've recorded most of the presentations on video. The results are still in the process of being cut, but are starting to appear at https://media.ccc.de/c/osmodevcon2018.

If you want to join a future OsmoDevCon in person: Make sure you start contributing to any of the many Osmocom member projects now to become eligible. We need you!

Now the sad part is that it will take one entire year until we'll reconvene. May the Osmocom Developer community live long and prosper. I want to meet you guys for many more years at OsmoDevCon!

There is of course the user-oriented OsmoCon 2018 in October, but that's a much larger event with a different audience.

Nevertheless, I'm very much looking forward to that, too.

The OsmoCon 2018 Call for Participation is still running. Please consider submitting talks if you have anything open source mobile communications related to share!

osmo-fl2k - Using USB-VGA dongles as SDR transmitter

Harald Welte — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 16:00:00 GMT

Yesterday, during OsmoDevCon 2018, Steve Markgraf released osmo-fl2k, a new Osmocom member project which enables the use of FL2000 USB-VGA adapters as ultra-low-cost SDR transmitters.

How does it work?

A major part of any VGA card has always been a rather fast DAC which generates the 8-bit analog values for (each) red, green and blue at the pixel clock. Given that fast DACs were very rare/expensive (and still are to some extent), the idea of (ab)using the VGA DAC to transmit radio has been followed by many earlier, mostly proof-of-concept projects, such as Tempest for Eliza in 2001.

However, with osmo-fl2k, for the first time it was possible to completely disable the horizontal and vertical blanking, resulting in a continuous stream of pixels (samples). Furthermore, as the supported devices have no frame buffer memory, the samples are streamed directly from host RAM.

As most USB-VGA adapters appear to have no low-pass filters on their DAC outputs, it is possible to use any of the harmonics to transmit signals at much higher frequencies than normally possible within the baseband of the (max) 157 Mega-Samples per seconds that can be achieved.

osmo-fl2k and rtl-sdr

Steve is the creator of the earlier, complementary rtl-sdr software, which since 2012 transforms USB DVB adapters into general-purpose SDR receivers.

Today, six years later, it is hard to think of where SDR would be without rtl-sdr. Reducing the entry cost of SDR receivers nearly down to zero has done a lot for democratization of SDR technology.

There is hence a big chance that his osmo-fl2k project will attain a similar popularity. Having a SDR transmitter for as little as USD 5 is an amazing proposition.

free riders

Please keep in mind that Steve has done rtl-sdr just for fun, to scratch his own itch and for the "hack value". He chose to share his work with the wider public, in source code, under a free software license. He's a very humble person, he doesn't need to stand in the limelight.

Many other people since have built a business around rtl-sdr. They have grabbed domains with his project name, etc. They are now earning money based on what he has done and shared selflessly, without ever contributing back to the pioneering developers who brought this to all of us in the first place.

So, do we want to bet if history repeats itself? How long will it take for vendors showing up online advertising the USB VGA dongles as "SDR transmitter", possibly even with a surcharge? How long will it take for them to include Steve's software without giving proper attribution? How long until they will violate the GNU GPL by not providing the complete corresponding source code to derivative versions they create?

If you want to thank Steve for his amazing work

reach out to him personally
contribute to his work, e.g.
help to maintain it
package it for distributions
send patches (via osmocom-sdr mailing list)
register an osmocom.org account and update the wiki with more information

And last, but not least, carry on the spirit of "hack value" and democratization of software defined radio.

Thank you, Steve! After rtl-sdr and osmo-fl2k, it's hard to guess what will come next :)

34C3 and its Osmocom GSM/UMTS network

Harald Welte — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 16:00:00 GMT

At the 34th annual Chaos Communication Congress, a team of Osmocom folks continued the many years old tradition of operating an experimental Osmocom based GSM network at the event. Though I've originally started that tradition, I'm not involved in installation and/or operation of that network, all the credits go to Lynxis, neels, tsaitgaist and the larger team of volunteers surrounding them. My involvement was only to answer the occasional technical question and to look at bugs that show up in the software during operation, and if possible fix them on-site.

34C3 marks two significant changes in terms of its cellular network:

the new post-nitb Osmocom stack was used, with OsmoBSC, OsmoMSC and OsmoHLR
both an GSM/GPRS network (on 1800 MHz) was operated ,as well as (for the first time) an UMTS network (in the 850 MHz band)

The good news is: The team did great work building this network from scratch, in a new venue, and without relying on people that have significant experience in network operation. Definitely, the team was considerably larger and more distributed than at the time when I was still running that network.

The bad news is: There was a seemingly endless number of bugs that were discovered while operating this network. Some shortcomings were known before, but the extent and number of bugs uncovered all across the stack was quite devastating to me. Sure, at some point from day 2 onwards we had a network that provided [some level of] service, and as far as I've heard, some ~ 23k calls were switched over it. But that was after more than two days of debugging + bug fixing, and we still saw unexplained behavior and crashes later on.

This is such a big surprise as we have put a lot of effort into testing over the last years. This starts from the osmo-gsm-tester software and continuously running test setup, and continues with the osmo-ttcn3-hacks integration tests that mainly I wrote during the last few months. Both us and some of our users have also (successfully!) performed interoperability testing with other vendors' implementations such as MSCs. And last, but not least, the individual Osmocom developers had been using the new post-NITB stack on their personal machines.

So what does this mean?

I'm sorry about the sub-standard state of the software and the resulting problems we've experienced in the 34C3 network. The extent of problems surprised me (and I presume everyone else involved)
I'm grateful that we've had the opportunity to discover all those bugs, thanks to the GSM team at 34C3, as well as Deutsche Telekom for donating 3 ARFCNs from their spectrum, as well as the German regulatory authority Bundesnetzagentur for providing the experimental license in the 850 MHz spectrum.
We need to have even more focus on automatic testing than we had so far. None of the components should be without exhaustive test coverage on at least the most common transactions, including all their failure modes (such as timeouts, rejects, ...)

My preferred method of integration testing has been by using TTCN-3 and Eclipse TITAN to emulate all the interfaces surrounding a single of the Osmocom programs (like OsmoBSC) and then test both valid and invalid transactions. For the BSC, this means emulating MS+BTS on Abis; emulating MSC on A; emulating the MGW, as well as the CTRL and VTY interfaces.

I currently see the following areas in biggest need of integration testing:

OsmoHLR (which needs a GSUP implementation in TTCN-3, which I've created on the spot at 34C3) where we e.g. discovered that updates to the subscriber via VTY/CTRL would surprisingly not result in an InsertSubscriberData to VLR+SGSN
OsmoMSC, particularly when used with external MNCC handlers, which was so far blocked by the lack of a MNCC implementation in TTCN-3, which I've been working on both on-site and after returning back home.
user plane testing for OsmoMGW and other components. We currently only test the control plane (MGCP), but not the actual user plane e.g. on the RTP side between the elements
UMTS related testing on OsmoHNBGW, OsmoMSC and OsmoSGSN. We currently have no automatic testing at all in these areas.

Even before 34C3 and the above-mentioned experiences, I concluded that for 2018 we will pursue a test-driven development approach for all new features added by the sysmocom team to the Osmocom code base. The experience with the many issues at 34C3 has just confirmed that approach. In parallel, we will have to improve test coverage on the existing code base, as outlined above. The biggest challenge will of course be to convince our paying customers of this approach, but I see very little alternative if we want to ensure production quality of our cellular stack.

So here we come: 2018, The year of testing.

Osmocom Review 2017

Harald Welte — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 16:00:00 GMT

As 2017 has just concluded, let's have a look at the major events and improvements in the Osmocom Cellular Infrastructure projects (i.e. those projects dealing with building protocol stacks and network elements for mobile network infrastructure.

I've prepared a detailed year 2017 summary at the osmocom.org website, but let me write a bit about the most note-worthy topics here.

NITB Split

Once upon a time, we implemented everything needed to operate a GSM network inside a single process called OsmoNITB. Those days are now gone, and we have separate OsmoBSC, OsmoMSC, OsmoHLR, OsmoSTP processes, which use interfaces that are interoperable with non-Osmocom implementations (which is what some of our users require).

This change is certainly the most significant change in the close-to-10-year history of the project. However, we have tried to make it as non-intrusive as possible, by using default point codes and IP addresses which will make the individual processes magically talk to each other if installed on a single machine.

We've also released a OsmoNITB Migration Guide, as well as our usual set of user manuals in order to help our users.

We'll continue to improve the user experience, to re-introduce some of the features lost in the split, such as the ability to attach names to the subscribers.

Testing

We have osmo-gsm-tester together with the two physical setups at the sysmocom office, which continuously run the latest Osmocom components and test an entire matrix of different BTSs, software configurations and modems. However, this tests at super low load, and it tests only signalling so far, not user plane yet. Hence, coverage is limited.

We also have unit tests as part of the 'make check' process, Jenkins based build verification before merging any patches, as well as integration tests for some of the network elements in TTCN-3. This is much more than we had until 2016, but still by far not enough, as we had just seen at the fall-out from the sub-optimal 34C3 event network.

OsmoCon

2017 also marks the year where we've for the first time organized a user-oriented event. It was a huge success, and we will for sure have another OsmoCon incarnation in 2018 (most likely in May or June). It will not be back-to-back with the developer conference OsmoDevCon this time.

SIGTRAN stack

We have a new SIGTRAN stakc with SUA, M3UA and SCCP as well as OsmoSTP. This has been lacking a long time.

OsmoGGSN

We have converted OpenGGSN into a true member of the Osmocom family, thereby deprecating OpenGGSN which we had earlier adopted and maintained.

Osmocom jenkins test suite execution

Harald Welte — Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:00:00 GMT

Automatic Testing in Osmocom

So far, in many Osmocom projects we have unit tests next to the code. Those unit tests are executing test on a per-C-function basis, and typically use the respective function directly from a small test program, executed at make check time. The actual main program (like OsmoBSC or OsmoBTS) is not executed at that time.

We also have VTY testing, which specifically tests that the VTY has proper documentation for all nodes of all commands.

Then there's a big gap, and we have osmo-gsm-tester for testing a full cellular network end-to-end. It includes physical GSM modesm, coaxial distribution network, attenuators, splitter/combiners, real BTS hardware and logic to run the full network, from OsmoBTS to the core - both for OsmoNITB and OsmoMSC+OsmoHLR based networks.

However, I think a lot of testing falls somewhere in between, where you want to run the program-under-test (e.g. OsmoBSC), but you don't want to run the MS, BTS and MSC that normally surroudns it. You want to test it by emulating the BTS on the Abis sid and the MSC on the A side, and just test Abis and A interface transactions.

For this kind of testing, I have recently started to investigate available options and tools.

OsmoSTP (M3UA/SUA)

Several months ago, during the development of OsmoSTP, I disovered that the Network Programming Lab of Münster University of Applied Sciences led by Michael Tuexen had released implementations of the ETSI test suite for the M3UA and SUA members of the SIGTRAN protocol family.

The somewhat difficult part is that they are implemented in scheme, using the guile interpreter/compiler, as well as a C-language based execution wrapper, which then is again called by another guile wrapper script.

I've reimplemented the test executor in python and added JUnitXML output to it. This means it can feed the test results directly into Jenkins.

I've also cleaned up the Dockerfiles and related image generation for the osmo-stp-master, m3ua-test and sua-test images, as well as some scripts to actually execute them on one of the Builders. You can find related Dockerfiles as well as associtaed Makfiles in http://git.osmocom.org/docker-playground

The end result after integration with Osmocom jenkins can be seen in the following examples on jenkins.osmocom.org for M3UA and for SUA

Triggering the builds is currently periodic once per night, but we could of course also trigger them automatically at some later point.

OpenGGSN (GTP)

For OpenGGSN, during the development of IPv6 PDP context support, I wrote some test infrastructure and test cases in TTCN-3. Those test cases can be found at http://git.osmocom.org/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/tree/ggsn_tests

I've also packaged the GGSN and the test cases each into separate Docker containers called osmo-ggsn-latest and ggsn-test. Related Dockerfiles and Makefiles can again be found in http://git.osmocom.org/docker-playground - together with a Eclipse TITAN Docker base image using Debian Stretch called debian-stretch-titan

Using those TTCN-3 test cases with the TITAN JUnitXML logger plugin we can again integrate the results directly into Jenkins, whose results you can see at https://jenkins.osmocom.org/jenkins/view/TTCN3/job/ttcn3-ggsn-test/14/testReport/(root)/GGSN_Tests/

Further Work

I've built some infrastructure for Gb (NS/BSSGP), VirtualUm and other testing, but yet have to build Docker images and related jenkins integration for it. Stay tuned about that. Also, lots more actual tests cases are required. I'm very much looking forward to any contributions.

IPv6 User Plane support in Osmocom

Harald Welte — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:00:00 GMT

Preface

Cellular systems ever since GPRS are using a tunnel based architecture to provide IP connectivity to cellular terminals such as phones, modems, M2M/IoT devices and the like. The MS/UE establishes a PDP context between itself and the GGSN on the other end of the cellular network. The GGSN then is the first IP-level router, and the entire cellular network is abstracted away from the User-IP point of view.

This architecture didn't change with EGPRS, and not with UMTS, HSxPA and even survived conceptually in LTE/4G.

While the concept of a PDP context / tunnel exists to de-couple the transport layer from the structure and type of data inside the tunneled data, the primary user plane so far has been IPv4.

In Osmocom, we made sure that there are no impairments / assumptions about the contents of the tunnel, so OsmoPCU and OsmoSGSN do not care at all what bits and bytes are transmitted in the tunnel.

The only Osmocom component dealing with the type of tunnel and its payload structure is OpenGGSN. The GGSN must allocate the address/prefix assigned to each individual MS/UE, perform routing between the external IP network and the cellular network and hence is at the heart of this. Sadly, OpenGGSN was an abandoned project for many years until Osmocom adopted it, and it only implemented IPv4.

This is actually a big surprise to me. Many of the users of the Osmocom stack are from the IT security area. They use the Osmocom stack to test mobile phones for vulnerabilities, analyze mobile malware and the like. As any penetration tester should be interested in analyzing all of the attack surface exposed by a given device-under-test, I would have assumed that testing just on IPv4 would be insufficient and over the past 9 years, somebody should have come around and implemented the missing bits for IPv6 so they can test on IPv6, too.

In reality, it seems nobody appears to have shared line of thinking and invested a bit of time in growing the tools used. Or if they did, they didn't share the related code.

In June 2017, Gerrie Roos submitted a patch for OpenGGSN IPv6 support that raised hopes about soon being able to close that gap. However, at closer sight it turns out that the code was written against a more than 7 years old version of OpenGGSN, and it seems to primarily focus on IPv6 on the outer (transport) layer, rather than on the inner (user) layer.

OpenGGSN IPv6 PDP Context Support

So in July 2017, I started to work on IPv6 PDP support in OpenGGSN.

Initially I thought How hard can it be? It's not like IPv6 is new to me (I joined 6bone under 3ffe prefixes back in the 1990ies and worked on IPv6 support in ip6tables ages ago. And aside from allocating/matching longer addresses, what kind of complexity does one expect?

After my initial attempt of implementation, partially mislead by the patch that was contributed against that 2010-or-older version of OpenGGSN, I'm surprised how wrong I was.

In IPv4 PDP contexts, the process of establishing a PDP context is simple:

Request establishment of a PDP context, set the type to IETF IPv4
Receive an allocated IPv4 End User Address
Optionally use IPCP (part of PPP) to reques and receive DNS Server IP addresses

So I implemented the identical approach for IPv6. Maintain a pool of IPv6 addresses, allocate one, and use IPCP for DNS. And nothing worked.

IPv6 PDP contexts assign a /64 prefix, not a single address or a smaller prefix
The End User Address that's part of the Signalling plane of Layer 3 Session Management and GTP is not the actual address, but just serves to generate the interface identifier portion of a link-local IPv6 address
IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration is used with this link-local IPv6 address inside the User Plane, after the control plane signaling to establish the PDP context has completed. This means the GGSN needs to parse ICMPv6 router solicitations and generate ICMPV6 router advertisements.

To make things worse, the stateless autoconfiguration is modified in some subtle ways to make it different from the normal SLAAC used on Ethernet and other media:

the timers / lifetimes are different
only one prefix is permitted
only a prefix length of 64 is permitted

A few days later I implemented all of that, but it still didn't work. The problem was with DNS server adresses. In IPv4, the 3GPP protocols simply tunnel IPCP frames for this. This makes a lot of sense, as IPCP is designed for point-to-point interfaces, and this is exactly what a PDP context is.

In IPv6, the corresponding IP6CP protocol does not have the capability to provision DNS server addresses to a PPP client. WTF? The IETF seriously requires implementations to do DHCPv6 over PPP, after establishing a point-to-point connection, only to get DNS server information?!? Some people suggested an IETF draft to change this butthe draft has expired in 2011 and we're still stuck.

While 3GPP permits the use of DHCPv6 in some scenarios, support in phones/modems for it is not mandatory. Rather, the 3GPP has come up with their own mechanism on how to communicate DNS server IPv6 addresses during PDP context activation: The use of containers as part of the PCO Information Element used in L3-SM and GTP (see Section 10.5.6.3 of 3GPP TS 24.008. They by the way also specified the same mechanism for IPv4, so there's now two competing methods on how to provision IPv4 DNS server information: IPCP and the new method.

In any case, after some more hacking, OpenGGSN can now also provide DNS server information to the MS/UE. And once that was implemented, I had actual live uesr IPv6 data over a full Osmocom cellular stack!

Summary

We now have working IPv6 User IP in OpenGGSN. Together with the rest of the Osmocom stack you can operate a private GPRS, EGPRS, UMTS or HSPA network that provide end-to-end transparent, routed IPv6 connectivity to mobile devices.

All in all, it took much longer than nneeded, and the following questions remain in my mind:

why did the IETF not specify IP6CP capabilities to configure DNS servers?
why the complex two-stage address configuration with PDP EUA allocation for the link-local address first and then stateless autoconfiguration?
why don't we simply allocate the entire prefix via the End User Address information element on the signaling plane? For sure next to the 16byte address we could have put one byte for prefix-length?
why do I see duplication detection flavour neighbour solicitations from Qualcomm based phones on what is a point-to-point link with exactly two devices: The UE and the GGSN?
why do I see link-layer source address options inside the ICMPv6 neighbor and router solicitation from mobile phones, when that option is specifically not to be used on point-to-point links?
why is the smallest prefix that can be allocated a /64? That's such a waste for a point-to-point link with a single device on the other end, and in times of billions of connected IoT devices it will just encourage the use of non-public IPv6 space (i.e. SNAT/MASQUERADING) while wasting large parts of the address space

Some of those choices would have made sense if one would have made it fully compatible with normal IPv6 like e.g. on Ethernet. But implementing ICMPv6 router and neighbor solicitation without getting any benefit such as ability to have multiple prefixes, prefixes of different lengths, I just don't understand why anyone ever thought You can find the code at http://git.osmocom.org/openggsn/log/?h=laforge/ipv6 and the related ticket at https://osmocom.org/issues/2418

Virtual Um interface between OsmoBTS and OsmocomBB

Harald Welte — Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:00:00 GMT

During the last couple of days, I've been working on completing, cleaning up and merging a Virtual Um interface (i.e. virtual radio layer) between OsmoBTS and OsmocomBB. After I started with the implementation and left it in an early stage in January 2016, Sebastian Stumpf has been completing it around early 2017, with now some subsequent fixes and improvements by me. The combined result allows us to run a complete GSM network with 1-N BTSs and 1-M MSs without any actual radio hardware, which is of course excellent for all kinds of testing scenarios.

The Virtual Um layer is based on sending L2 frames (blocks) encapsulated via GSMTAP UDP multicast packets. There are two separate multicast groups, one for uplink and one for downlink. The multicast nature simulates the shared medium and enables any simulated phone to receive the signal from multiple BTSs via the downlink multicast group.

In OsmoBTS, this is implemented via the new osmo-bts-virtual BTS model.

In OsmocomBB, this is realized by adding virtphy virtual L1, which speaks the same L1CTL protocol that is used between the real OsmcoomBB Layer1 and the Layer2/3 programs such as mobile and the like.

Now many people would argue that GSM without the radio and actual handsets is no fun. I tend to agree, as I'm a hardware person at heart and I am not a big fan of simulation.

Nevertheless, this forms the basis of all kinds of possibilities for automatized (regression) testing in a way and for layers/interfaces that osmo-gsm-tester cannot cover as it uses a black-box proprietary mobile phone (modem). It is also pretty useful if you're traveling a lot and don't want to carry around a BTS and phones all the time, or get some development done in airplanes or other places where operating a radio transmitter is not really a (viable) option.

If you're curious and want to give it a shot, I've put together some setup instructions at the Virtual Um page of the Osmocom Wiki.

FOSS misconceptions, still in 2017

Harald Welte — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:00:00 GMT

The lack of basic FOSS understanding in Telecom

Given that the Free and Open Source movement has been around at least since the 1980ies, it puzzles me that people still seem to have such fundamental misconceptions about it.

Something that really triggered me was an article at LightReading [1] which quotes Ulf Ewaldsson, a leading Ericsson excecutive with

"I have yet to understand why we would open source something we think is really good software"

This completely misses the point. FOSS is not about making a charity donation of a finished product to the planet.

FOSS is about sharing the development costs among multiple players, and avoiding that everyone has to reimplement the wheel. Macro-Economically, it is complete and utter nonsense that each 3GPP specification gets implemented two dozens of times, by at least a dozen of different entities. As a result, products are way more expensive than needed.

If large Telco players (whether operators or equipment manufacturers) were to collaboratively develop code just as much as they collaboratively develop the protocol specifications, there would be no need for replicating all of this work.

As a result, everyone could produce cellular network elements at reduced cost, sharing the R&D expenses, and competing in key areas, such as who can come up with the most energy-efficient implementation, or can produce the most reliable hardware, the best receiver sensitivity, the best and most fair scheduling implementation, or whatever else. But some 80% of the code could probably be shared, as e.g. encoding and decoding messages according to a given publicly released 3GPP specification document is not where those equipment suppliers actually compete.

So my dear cellular operator executives: Next time you're cursing about the prohibitively expensive pricing that your equipment suppliers quote you: You only have to pay that much because everyone is reimplementing the wheel over and over again.

Equally, my dear cellular infrastructure suppliers: You are all dying one by one, as it's hard to develop everything from scratch. Over the years, many of you have died. One wonders, if we might still have more players left, if some of you had started to cooperate in developing FOSS at least in those areas where you're not competing. You could replicate what Linux is doing in the operating system market. There's no need in having a phalanx of different proprietary flavors of Unix-like OSs. It's way too expansive, and it's not an area in which most companies need to or want to compete anyway.

Management Summary

You don't first develop and entire product until it is finished and then release it as open source. This makes little economic sense in a lot of cases, as you've already invested into developing 100% of it. Instead, you actually develop a new product collaboratively as FOSS in order to not have to invest 100% but maybe only 30% or even less. You get a multitude of your R&D investment back, because you're not only getting your own code, but all the other code that other community members implemented. You of course also get other benefits, such as peer review of the code, more ideas (not all bright people work inside one given company), etc.

How the Osmocom GSM stack is funded

Harald Welte — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:00:00 GMT

As the topic has been raised on twitter, I thought I might share a bit of insight into the funding of the Osmocom Cellular Infrastructure Projects.

Keep in mind: Osmocom is a much larger umbrella project, and beyond the Networks-side cellular stack is home many different community-based projects around open source mobile communications. All of those have started more or less as just for fun projects, nothing serious, just a hobby [1]

The projects implementing the network-side protocol stacks and network elements of GSM/GPRS/EGPRS/UMTS cellular networks are somewhat the exception to that, as they have evolved to some extent professionalized. We call those projects collectively the Cellular Infrastructure projects inside Osmocom. This post is about that part of Osmocom only

History

From late 2008 through 2009, People like Holger and I were working on bs11-abis and later OpenBSC only in our spare time. The name Osmocom didn't even exist back then. There was a strong technical community with contributions from Sylvain Munaut, Andreas Eversberg, Daniel Willmann, Jan Luebbe and a few others. None of this would have been possible if it wasn't for all the help we got from Dieter Spaar with the BS-11 [2]. We all had our dayjob in other places, and OpenBSC work was really just a hobby. People were working on it, because it was where no FOSS hacker has gone before. It was cool. It was a big and pleasant challenge to enter the closed telecom space as pure autodidacts.

Holger and I were doing freelance contract development work on Open Source projects for many years before. I was mostly doing Linux related contracting, while Holger has been active in all kinds of areas throughout the FOSS software stack.

In 2010, Holger and I saw some first interest by companies into OpenBSC, including Netzing AG and On-Waves ehf. So we were able to spend at least some of our paid time on OpenBSC/Osmocom related contract work, and were thus able to do less other work. We also continued to spend tons of spare time in bringing Osmocom forward. Also, the amount of contract work we did was only a fraction of the many more hours of spare time.

In 2011, Holger and I decided to start the company sysmocom in order to generate more funding for the Osmocom GSM projects by means of financing software development by product sales. So rather than doing freelance work for companies who bought their BTS hardware from other places (and spent huge amounts of cash on that), we decided that we wanted to be a full solution supplier, who can offer a complete product based on all hardware and software required to run small GSM networks.

The only problem is: We still needed an actual BTS for that. Through some reverse engineering of existing products we figured out who one of the ODM suppliers for the hardware + PHY layer was, and decided to develop the OsmoBTS software to do so. We inherited some of the early code from work done by Andreas Eversberg on the jolly/bts branch of OsmocomBB (thanks), but much was missing at the time.

What follows was Holger and me working several years for free [3], without any salary, in order to complete the OsmoBTS software, build an embedded Linux distribution around it based on OE/poky, write documentation, etc. and complete the first sysmocom product: The sysmoBTS 1002

We did that not because we want to get rich, or because we want to run a business. We did it simply because we saw an opportunity to generate funding for the Osmocom projects and make them more sustainable and successful. And because we believe there is a big, gaping, huge vacuum in terms of absence of FOSS in the cellular telecom sphere.

Funding by means of sysmocom product sales

Once we started to sell the sysmoBTS products, we were able to fund Osmocom related development from the profits made on hardware / full-system product sales. Every single unit sold made a big contribution towards funding both the maintenance as well as the ongoing development on new features.

This source of funding continues to be an important factor today.

Funding by means of R&D contracts

The probably best and most welcome method of funding Osmocom related work is by means of R&D projects in which a customer funds our work to extend the Osmocom GSM stack in one particular area where he has a particular need that the existing code cannot fulfill yet.

This kind of project is the ideal match, as it shows where the true strength of FOSS is: Each of those customers did not have to fund the development of a GSM stack from scratch. Rather, they only had to fund those bits that were missing for their particular application.

Our reference for this is and has been On-Waves, who have been funding development of their required features (and bug fixing etc.) since 2010.

We've of course had many other projects from a variety of customers over over the years. Last, but not least, we had a customer who willingly co-funded (together with funds from NLnet foundation and lots of unpaid effort by sysmocom) the 3G/3.5G support in the Osmocom stack.

The problem here is:

we have not been able to secure anywhere nearly as many of those R&D projects within the cellular industry, despite believing we have a very good foundation upon which we can built. I've been writing many exciting technical project proposals
you almost exclusively get funding only for new features. But it's very hard to get funding for the core maintenance work. The bug-fixing, code review, code refactoring, testing, etc.

So as a result, the profit margin you have on selling R&D projects is basically used to (do a bad job of) fund those bits and pieces that nobody wants to pay for.

Funding by means of customer support

There is a way to generate funding for development by providing support services. We've had some success with this, but primarily alongside the actual hardware/system sales - not so much in terms of pure software-only support.

Also, providing support services from a R&D company means:

either you distract your developers by handling support inquiries. This means they will have less time to work on actual code, and likely get side tracked by too many issues that make it hard to focus
or you have to hire separate support staff. This of course means that the size of the support business has to be sufficiently large to not only cover the cots of hiring + training support staff, but also still generate funding for the actual software R&D.

We've tried shortly with the second option, but fallen back to the first for now. There's simply not sufficient user/admin type support business to rectify dedicated staff for that.

Funding by means of cross-subsizing from other business areas

sysmocom also started to do some non-Osmocom projects in order to generate revenue that we can feed again into Osmocom projects. I'm not at liberty to discuss them in detail, but basically we've been doing pretty much anything from

custom embedded Linux board designs
M2M devices with GSM modems
consulting gigs
public tendered research projects

Profits from all those areas went again into Osmocom development.

Last, but not least, we also operate the sysmocom webshop. The profit we make on those products also is again immediately re-invested into Osmocom development.

Funding by grants

We've had some success in securing funding from NLnet Foundation for specific features. While this is useful, the size of their projects grants of up to EUR 30k is not a good fit for the scale of the tasks we have at hand inside Osmocom. You may think that's a considerable amount of money? Well, that translates to 2-3 man-months of work at a bare cost-covering rate. At a team size of 6 developers, you would theoretically have churned through that in two weeks. Also, their focus is (understandably) on Internet and IT security, and not so much cellular communications.

There are of course other options for grants, such as government research grants and the like. However, they require long-term planning, they require you to match (i.e. pay yourself) a significant portion, and basically mandate that you hire one extra person for doing all the required paperwork and reporting. So all in all, not a particularly attractive option for a very small company consisting of die hard engineers.

Funding by more BTS ports

At sysmocom, we've been doing some ports of the OsmoBTS + OsmoPCU software to other hardware, and supporting those other BTS vendors with porting, R&D and support services.

If sysmocom was a classic BTS vendor, we would not help our "competition". However, we are not. sysmocom exists to help Osmocom, and we strongly believe in open systems and architectures, without a single point of failure, a single supplier for any component or any type of vendor lock-in.

So we happily help third parties to get Osmocom running on their hardware, either with a proprietary PHY or with OsmoTRX.

However, we expect that those BTS vendors also understand their responsibility to share the development and maintenance effort of the stack. Preferably by dedicating some of their own staff to work in the Osmocom community. Alternatively, sysmocom can perform that work as paid service. But that's a double-edged sword: We don't want to be a single point of failure.

Osmocom funding outside of sysmocom

Osmocom is of course more than sysmocom. Even for the cellular infrastructure projects inside Osmocom is true: They are true, community-based, open, collaborative development projects. Anyone can contribute.

Over the years, there have been code contributions by e.g. Fairwaves. They, too, build GSM base station hardware and use that as a means to not only recover the R&D on the hardware, but also to contribute to Osmocom. At some point a few years ago, there was a lot of work from them in the area of OsmoTRX, OsmoBTS and OsmoPCU. Unfortunately, in more recent years, they have not been able to keep up the level of contributions.

There are other companies engaged in activities with and around Osmcoom. There's Rhizomatica, an NGO helping indigenous communities to run their own cellular networks. They have been funding some of our efforts, but being an NGO helping rural regions in developing countries, they of course also don't have the deep pockets. Ideally, we'd want to be the ones contributing to them, not the other way around.

State of funding

We're making some progress in securing funding from players we cannot name [4] during recent years. We're also making occasional progress in convincing BTS suppliers to chip in their share. Unfortunately there are more who don't live up to their responsibility than those who do. I might start calling them out by name one day. The wider community and the public actually deserves to know who plays by FOSS rules and who doesn't. That's not shaming, it's just stating bare facts.

Which brings us to:

sysmocom is in an office that's actually too small for the team, equipment and stock. But we certainly cannot afford more space.
we cannot pay our employees what they could earn working at similar positions in other companies. So working at sysmocom requires dedication to the cause :)
Holger and I have invested way more time than we have ever paid us, even more so considering the opportunity cost of what we would have earned if we'd continued our freelance Open Source hacker path
we're [just barely] managing to pay for 6 developers dedicated to Osmocom development on our payroll based on the various funding sources indicated above

Nevertheless, I doubt that any such a small team has ever implemented an end-to-end GSM/GPRS/EGPRS network from RAN to Core at comparative feature set. My deepest respects to everyone involved. The big task now is to make it sustainable.

Summary

So as you can see, there's quite a bit of funding around. However, it always falls short of what's needed to implement all parts properly, and even not quite sufficient to keep maintaining the status quo in a proper and tested way. That can often be frustrating (mostly to us but sometimes also to users who run into regressions and oter bugs). There's so much more potential. So many things we wanted to add or clean up for a long time, but too little people interested in joining in, helping out - financially or by writing code.

On thing that is often a challenge when dealing with traditional customers: We are not developing a product and then selling a ready-made product. In fact, in FOSS this would be more or less suicidal: We'd have to invest man-years upfront, but then once it is finished, everyone can use it without having to partake in that investment.

So instead, the FOSS model requires the customers/users to chip in early during the R&D phase, in order to then subsequently harvest the fruits of that.

I think the lack of a FOSS mindset across the cellular / telecom industry is the biggest constraining factor here. I've seen that some 20-15 years ago in the Linux world. Trust me, it takes a lot of dedication to the cause to endure this lack of comprehension so many years later.

Playing back GSM RTP streams, RTP-HR bugs

Harald Welte — Sun, 28 May 2017 16:00:00 GMT

Chapter 0: Problem Statement

In an all-IP GSM network, where we use Abis, A and other interfaces within the cellular network over IP transport, the audio of voice calls is transported inside RTP frames. The codec payload in those RTP frames is the actual codec frame of the respective cellular voice codec. In GSM, there are four relevant codecs: FR, HR, EFR and AMR.

Every so often during the (meanwhile many years of ) development of Osmocom cellular infrastructure software it would have been useful to be able to quickly play back the audio for analysis of given issues.

However, until now we didn't have that capability. The reason is relatively simple: In Osmocom, we genally don't do transcoding but simply pass the voice codec frames from left to right. They're only transcoded inside the phones or inside some external media gateway (in case of larger networks).

Chapter 1: GSM Audio Pocket Knife

Back in 2010, when we were very actively working on OsmocomBB, the telephone-side GSM protocol stack implementation, Sylvain Munaut wrote the GSM Audio Pocket Knife (gapk) in order to be able to convert between different formats (representations) of codec frames. In cellular communcations, everyoe is coming up with their own representation for the codec frames: The way they look on E1 as a TRAU frame is completely different from how RTP payload looks like, or what the TI Calypso DSP uses internally, or what a GSM Tester like the Racal 61x3 uses. The differences are mostly about data types used, bit-endinanness as well as padding and headers. And of course those different formats exist for each of the four codecs :/

In 2013 I first added simplistic RTP support for FR-GSM to gapk, which was sufficient for my debugging needs back then. Still, you had to save the decoded PCM output to a file and play that back, or use a pipe into aplay.

Last week, I picked up this subject again and added a long series of patches to gapk:

support for variable-length codec frames (required for AMR support)
support for AMR codec encode/decode using libopencore-amrnb
support of all known RTP payload formats for all four codecs
support for direct live playback to a sound card via ALSA

All of the above can now be combined to make GAPK bind to a specified UDP port and play back the RTP codec frames that anyone sends to that port using a command like this:

$ gapk -I 0.0.0.0/30000 -f rtp-amr -A default -g rawpcm-s16le

I've also merged a chance to OsmoBSC/OsmoNITB which allows the administrator to re-direct the voice of any active voice channel towards a user-specified IP address and port. Using that you can simply disconnect the voice stream from its normal destination and play back the audio via your sound card.

Chapter 2: Bugs in OsmoBTS GSM-HR

While going through the exercise of implementing the above extension to gapk, I had lots of trouble to get it to work for GSM-HR.

After some more digging, it seems there are two conflicting specification on how to format the RTP payload for half-rate GSM:

ETSI TS 101 318 from 1998
IETF RFC 5993 from 2010

In Osmocom, we claim to implement RFC5993, but it turned out that (at least) osmo-bts-sysmo (for sysmoBTS) was actually implementing the ETSI format instead.

And even worse, osmo-bts-sysmo gets event the ETSI format wrong. Each of the codec parameters (which are unaligned bit-fields) are in the wrong bit-endianness :(

Both the above were coincidentially also discovered by Sylvain Munaut during operating of the 32C3 GSM network in December 2015 and resulted the two following "work around" patches: * HACK for HR * HACK: Fix the bit order in HR frames

Those merely worked around those issues in the rtp_proxy of OsmoNITB, rather than addressing the real issue. That's ok, they were "quick" hacks to get something working at all during a four-day conference. I'm now working on "real" fixes in osmo-bts-sysmo. The devil is of course in the details, when people upgrade one BTS but not the other and want to inter-operate, ...

It yet remains to be investigated how osmo-bts-trx and other osmo-bts ports behave in this regard.

Chapter 3: Conclusions

Most definitely it is once again a very clear sign that more testing is required. It's tricky to see even wih osmo-gsm-tester, as GSM-HR works between two phones or even two instances of osmo-bts-sysmo, as both sides of the implementation have the same (wrong) understanding of the spec.

Given that we can only catch this kind of bug together with the hardware (the DSP runs the PHY code), pure unit tests wouldn't catch it. And the end-to-end test is also not very well suited to it. It seems to call for something in betewen. Something like an A-bis interface level test.

We need more (automatic) testing. I cannot say that often enough. The big challenge is how to convince contributors and customers that they should invest their time and money there, rather than yet-another (not automatically tested) feature?

OsmoDevCon 2017 Review

Harald Welte — Tue, 02 May 2017 16:00:00 GMT

After the public user-oriented OsmoCon 2017, we also recently had the 6th incarnation of our annual contributors-only Osmocom Developer Conference: The OsmoDevCon 2017.

This is a much smaller group, typically about 20 people, and is limited to actual developers who have a past record of contributing to any of the many Osmocom projects.

We had a large number of presentation and discussions. In fact, so large that the schedule of talks extended from 10am to midnight on some days. While this is great, it also means that there was definitely too little time for more informal conversations, chatting or even actual work on code.

We also have such a wide range of topics and scope inside Osmocom, that the traditional ad-hoch scheduling approach no longer seems to be working as it used to. Not everyone is interested in (or has time for) all the topics, so we should group them according to their topic/subject on a given day or half-day. This will enable people to attend only those days that are relevant to them, and spend the remaining day in an adjacent room hacking away on code.

It's sad that we only have OsmoDevCon once per year. Maybe that's actually also something to think about. Rather than having 4 days once per year, maybe have two weekends per year.

Always in motion the future is.

OsmoCon 2017 Review

Harald Welte — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:00:00 GMT

It's already one week past the event, so I really have to sit down and write some rewview on the first public Osmocom Conference ever: OsmoCon 2017.

The event was a huge success, by all accounts.

We've not only been sold out, but we also had to turn down some last minute registrations due to the venue being beyond capacity (60 seats). People traveled from Japan, India, the US, Mexico and many other places to attend.
We've had an amazing audience ranging from commercial operators to community cellular operators to professional developers doing work relate to osmocom, academia, IT security crowds and last but not least enthusiasts/hobbyists, with whom the project[s] started.
I've received exclusively positive feedback from many attendees
We've had a great programme. Some part of it was of introductory nature and probably not too interesting if you've been in Osmocom for a few years. However, the work on 3G as well as the current roadmap was probably not as widely known yet. Also, I really loved to see Roch's talk about Running a commercial cellular network with Osmocom software as well as the talk on Facebook's OpenCellular BTS hardware and the Community Cellular Manager.
We have very professional live streaming + video recordings courtesy of the C3VOC team. Thanks a lot for your support and for having the video recordings of all talks online already at the next day after the event.

We also received some requests for improvements, many of which we will hopefully consider before the next Osmocom Conference:

have a multiple day event. Particularly if you're traveling long-distance, it is a lot of overhead for a single-day event. We of course fully understand that. On the other hand, it was the first Osmocom Conference, and hence it was a test balloon where it was initially unclear if we'll be able to get a reasonable number of attendees interested at all, or not. And organizing an event with venue and talks for multiple days if in the end only 10 people attend would have been a lot of effort and financial risk. But now that we know there are interested folks, we can definitely think of a multiple day event next time
Signs indicating venue details on the last meters. I agree, this cold have been better. The address of the venue was published, but we could have had some signs/posters at the door pointing you to the right meeting room inside the venue. Sorry for that.
Better internet connectivity. This is a double-edged sword. Of course we want our audience to be primarily focused on the talks and not distracted :P I would hope that most people are able to survive a one day event without good connectivity, but for sure we will have to improve in case of a multiple-day event in the future

In terms of my requests to the attendees, I only have one

Participate in the discussions on the schedule/programme while it is still possible to influence it. When we started to put together the programme, I posted about it on the openbsc mailing list and invited feedback. Still, most people seem to have missed the time window during which talks could have been submitted and the schedule still influenced before finalizing it
Register in time. We have had almost no registrations until about two weeks ahead of the event (and I was considering to cancel it), and then suddenly were sold out in the week ahead of the event. We've had people who first booked their tickets, only to learn that the tickets were sold out. I guess we will introduce early bird pricing and add a very expensive last minute ticket option next year in order to increase motivation to register early and thus give us flexibility regarding venue planning.

Thanks again to everyone involved in OsmoCon 2017!

Ok, now, all of you who missed the event: Go to https://media.ccc.de/c/osmocon17 and check out the recordings. Have fun!

SIGTRAN/SS7 stack in libosmo-sigtran merged to master

Harald Welte — Sun, 09 Apr 2017 16:00:00 GMT

As I blogged in my blog post in Fabruary, I was working towards a more fully-featured SIGTRAN stack in the Osmocom (C-language) universe.

The trigger for this is the support of 3GPP compliant AoIP (with a BSSAP/SCCP/M3UA/SCTP protocol stacking), but it is of much more general nature.

The code has finally matured in my development branch(es) and is now ready for mainline inclusion. It's a series of about 77 (!) patches, some of which already are the squashed results of many more incremental development steps.

The result is as follows:

General SS7 core functions maintaining links, linksets and routes
xUA functionality for the various User Adaptations (currently SUA and M3UA supported)
- MTP User SAP according to ITU-T Q.701 (using osmo_prim)
- management of application servers (AS)
- management of application server processes (ASP)
- ASP-SM and ASP-TM state machine for ASP, AS-State Machine (using osmo_fsm)
- server (SG) and client (ASP) side implementation
- validated against ETSI TS 102 381 (by means of Michael Tuexen's m3ua-testtool)
- support for dynamic registration via RKM (routing key management)
- osmo-stp binary that can be used as Signal Transfer Point, with the usual "Cisco-style" command-line interface that all Osmocom telecom software has.
SCCP implementation, with strong focus on Connection Oriented SCCP (as that's what the A interface uses).
- osmo_fsm based state machine for SCCP connection, both incoming and outgoing
- SCCP User SAP according to ITU-T Q.711 (osmo_prim based)
- Interfaces with underlying SS7 stack via MTP User SAP (osmo_prim based)
- Support for SCCP Class 0 (unit data) and Class 2 (connection oriented)
- All SCCP + SUA Address formats (Global Title, SSN, PC, IPv4 Address)
- SCCP and SUA share one implementation, where SCCP messages are transcoded into SUA before processing, and re-encoded into SCCP after processing, as needed.

I have already done experimental OsmoMSC and OsmoHNB-GW over to libosmo-sigtran. They're now all just M3UA clients (ASPs) which connect to osmo-stp to exchange SCCP messages back and for the between them.

What's next on the agenda is to

finish my incomplete hacks to introduce IPA/SCCPlite as an alternative to SUA and M3UA (for backwards compatibility)
port over OsmoBSC to the SCCP User SAP of libosmo-sigtran
- validate with SSCPlite lower layer against existing SCCPlite MSCs
implement BSSAP / A-interface procedures in OsmoMSC, on top of the SCCP-User SAP.

If those steps are complete, we will have a single OsmoMSC that can talk both IuCS to the HNB-GW (or RNCs) for 3G/3.5G as well as AoIP towards OsmoBSC. We will then have fully SIGTRAN-enabled the full Osmocom stack, and are all on track to bury the OsmoNITB that was devoid of such interfaces.

If any reader is interested in interoperability testing with other implementations, either on M3UA or on SCCP or even on A or Iu interface level, please contact me by e-mail.

OsmoCon 2017 Updates: Travel Grants and Schedule

Harald Welte — Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:00:00 GMT

April 21st is approaching fast, so here some updates. I'm particularly happy that we now have travel grants available. So if the travel expenses were preventing you from attending so far: This excuse is no longer valid!

Get your ticket now, before it is too late. There's a limited number of seats available.

OsmoCon 2017 Schedule

The list of talks for OsmoCon 2017 has been available for quite some weeks, but today we finally published the first actual schedule.

As you can see, the day is fully packed with talks about Osmocom cellular infrastructure projects. We had to cut some talk slots short (30min instead of 45min), but I'm confident that it is good to cover a wider range of topics, while at the same time avoiding fragmenting the audience with multiple tracks.

OsmoCon 2017 Travel Grants

We are happy to announce that we have received donations to permit for providing travel grants!

This means that any attendee who is otherwise not able to cover their travel to OsmoCon 2017 (e.g. because their interest in Osmocom is not related to their work, or because their employer doesn't pay the travel expenses) can now apply for such a travel grant.

For more details see OsmoCon 2017 Travel Grants and/or contact osmocon2017@sysmocom.de.

Osmocom - personal thoughts

Harald Welte — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:00:00 GMT

As I just wrote in my post about TelcoSecDay, I sometimes worry about the choices I made with Osmocom, particularly when I see all the great stuff people doing in fields that I previously was working in, such as applied IT security as well as Linux Kernel development.

History

When people like Dieter, Holger and I started to play with what later became OpenBSC, it was just for fun. A challenge to master. A closed world to break open and which to attack with the tools, the mindset and the values that we brought with us.

Later, Holger and I started to do freelance development for commercial users of Osmocom (initially basically only OpenBSC, but then OsmoSGSN, OsmoBSC, OsmoBTS, OsmoPCU and all the other bits on the infrastructure side). This lead to the creation of sysmocom in 2011, and ever since we are trying to use revenue from hardware sales as well as development contracts to subsidize and grow the Osmocom projects. We're investing most of our earnings directly into more staff that in turn works on Osmocom related projects.

In order to do this, I basically gave up my previous career[s] in IT security and Linux kernel development (as well as put things like gpl-violations.org on hold). This is a big price to pay for crating more FOSS in the mobile communications world, and sometimes I'm a bit melancholic about the "old days" before.

Financial wealth is clearly not my primary motivation, but let me be honest: I could have easily earned a shitload of money continuing to do freelance Linux kernel development, IT security or related consulting. There's a lot of demand for related skills, particularly with some experience and reputation attached. But I decided against it, and worked several years without a salary (or almost none) on Osmocom related stuff [as did Holger].

But then, even with all the sacrifices made, and the amount of revenue we can direct from sysmocom into Osmocom development: The complexity of cellular infrastructure vs. the amount of funding and resources is always only a fraction of what one would normally want to have to do a proper implementation. So it's constant resource shortage, combined with lots of unpaid work on those areas that are on the immediate short-term feature list of customers, and that nobody else in the community feels like he wants to work on. And that can be a bit frustrating at times.

Is it worth it?

So after 7 years of OpenBSC, OsmocomBB and all the related projects, I'm sometimes asking myself whether it has been worth the effort, and whether it was the right choice.

It was right from the point that cellular technology is still an area that's obscure and unknown to many, and that has very little FOSS (though Improving!). At the same time, cellular networks are becoming more and more essential to many users and applications. So on an abstract level, I think that every step in the direction of FOSS for cellular is as urgently needed as before, and we have had quite some success in implementing many different protocols and network elements. Unfortunately, in most cases incompletely, as the amount of funding and/or resources were always extremely limited.

Satisfaction/Happiness

On the other hand, when it comes to metrics such as personal satisfaction or professional pride, I'm not very happy or satisfied. The community remains small, the commercial interest remains limited, and as opposed to the Linux world, most players have a complete lack of understanding that FOSS is not a one-way road, but that it is important for all stakeholders to contribute to the development in terms of development resources.

Project success?

I think a collaborative development project (which to me is what FOSS is about) is only then truly successful, if its success is not related to a single individual, a single small group of individuals or a single entity (company). And no matter how much I would like the above to be the case, it is not true for the Osmocom cellular infrastructure projects. Take away Holger and me, or take away sysmocom, and I think it would be pretty much dead. And I don't think I'm exaggerating here. This makes me sad, and after all these years, and after knowing quite a number of commercial players using our software, I would have hoped that the project rests on many more shoulders by now.

This is not to belittle the efforts of all the people contributing to it, whether the team of developers at sysmocom, whether those in the community that still work on it 'just for fun', or whether those commercial users that contract sysmocom for some of the work we do. Also, there are known and unknown donors/funders, like the NLnet foundation for some parts of the work. Thanks to all of you, and clearly we wouldn't be where we are now without all of that!

But I feel it's not sufficient for the overall scope, and it's not [yet] sustainable at this point. We need more support from all sides, particularly those not currently contributing. From vendors of BTSs and related equipment that use Osmocom components. From operators that use it. From individuals. From academia.

Yes, we're making progress. I'm happy about new developments like the Iu and Iuh support, the OsmoHLR/VLR split and 2G/3G authentication that Neels just blogged about. And there's progress on the SIMtrace2 firmware with card emulation and MITM, just as well as there's progress on libosmo-sigtran (with a more complete SUA, M3UA and connection-oriented SCCP stack), etc.

But there are too little people working on this, and those people are mostly coming from one particular corner, while most of the [commercial] users do not contribute the way you would expect them to contribute in collaborative FOSS projects. You can argue that most people in the Linux world also don't contribute, but then the large commercial beneficiaries (like the chipset and hardware makers) mostly do, as are the large commercial users.

All in all, I have the feeling that Osmocom is as important as it ever was, but it's not grown up yet to really walk on its own feet. It may be able to crawl, though ;)

So for now, don't panic. I'm not suffering from burn-out, mid-life crisis and I don't plan on any big changes of where I put my energy: It will continue to be Osmocom. But I also think we have to have a more open discussion with everyone on how to move beyond the current situation. There's no point in staying quiet about it, or to claim that everything is fine the way it is. We need more commitment. Not from the people already actively involved, but from those who are not [yet].

If that doesn't happen in the next let's say 1-2 years, I think it's fair that I might seriously re-consider in which field and in which way I'd like to dedicate my [I would think considerable] productive energy and focus.

Manual testing of Linux Kernel GTP module

Harald Welte — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:00:00 GMT

In May 2016 we got the GTP-U tunnel encapsulation/decapsulation module developed by Pablo Neira, Andreas Schultz and myself merged into the 4.8.0 mainline kernel.

During the second half of 2016, the code basically stayed untouched. In early 2017, several patch series of (at least) three authors have been published on the netdev mailing list for review and merge.

This poses the very valid question on how do we test those (sometimes quite intrusive) changes. Setting up a complete cellular network with either GPRS/EGPRS or even UMTS/HSPA is possible using OsmoSGSN and related Osmocom components. But it's of course a luxury that not many Linux kernel networking hackers have, as it involves the availability of a supported GSM BTS or UMTS hNodeB. And even if that is available, there's still the issue of having a spectrum license, or a wired setup with coaxial cable.

So as part of the recent discussions on netdev, I tested and described a minimal test setup using libgtpnl, OpenGGSN and sgsnemu.

This setup will start a mobile station + SGSN emulator inside a Linux network namespace, which talks GTP-C to OpenGGSN on the host, as well as GTP-U to the Linux kernel GTP-U implementation.

In case you're interested, feel free to check the following wiki page: https://osmocom.org/projects/linux-kernel-gtp-u/wiki/Basic_Testing

This is of course just for manual testing, and for functional (not performance) testing only. It would be great if somebody would pick up on my recent mail containing some suggestions about an automatic regression testing setup for the kernel GTP-U code. I have way too many spare-time projects in desperate need of some attention to work on this myself. And unfortunately, none of the telecom operators (who are the ones benefiting most from a Free Software accelerated GTP-U implementation) seems to be interested in at least co-funding or otherwise contributing to this effort :/

Towards a real SIGTRAN/SS7 stack in libosmo-sigtran

Harald Welte — Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:00:00 GMT

In the good old days ever since the late 1980ies - and a surprising amount even still today - telecom signaling traffic is still carried over circuit-switched SS7 with its TDM lines as physical layer, and not an IP/Ethernet based transport.

When Holger first created OsmoBSC, the BSC-only version of OpenBSC some 7-8 years ago, he needed to implement a minimal subset of SCCP wrapped in TCP called SCCP Lite. This was due to the simple fact that the MSC to which it should operate implemented this non-standard protocol stacking that was developed + deployed before the IETF SIGTRAN WG specified M3UA or SUA came around. But even after those were specified in 2004, the 3GPP didn't specify how to carry A over IP in a standard way until the end of 2008, when a first A interface over IP study was released.

As time passese, more modern MSCs of course still implement classic circuit-switched SS7, but appear to have dropped SCCPlite in favor of real AoIP as specified by 3GPP meanwhile. So it's time to add this to the osmocom universe and OsmoBSC.

A couple of years ago (2010-2013) implemented both classic SS7 (MTP2/MTP3/SCCP) as well as SIGTRAN stackings (M2PA/M2UA/M3UA/SUA in Erlang. The result has been used in some production deployments, but only with a relatively limited feature set. Unfortunately, this code has nto received any contributions in the time since, and I have to say that as an open source community project, it has failed. Also, while Erlang might be fine for core network equipment, running it on a BSC really is overkill. Keep in miond that we often run OpenBSC on really small ARM926EJS based embedded systems, much more resource constrained than any single smartphone during the late decade.

In the meantime (2015/2016) we also implemented some minimal SUA support for interfacing with UMTS femto/small cells via Iuh (see OsmoHNBGW).

So in order to proceed to implement the required SCCP-over-M3UA-over-SCTP stacking, I originally thought well, take Holgers old SCCP code, remove it from the IPA multiplex below, stack it on top of a new M3UA codebase that is copied partially from SUA.

However, this falls short of the goals in several ways:

The application shouldn't care whether it runs on top of SUA or SCCP, it should use a unified interface towards the SCCP Provider. OsmoHNBGW and the SUA code already introduce such an interface baed on the SCCP-User-SAP implemented using Osmocom primitives (osmo_prim). However, the old OsmoBSC/SCCPlite code doesn't have such abstraction.
The code should be modular and reusable for other SIGTRAN stackings as required in the future

So I found myself sketching out what needs to be done and I ended up pretty much with a re-implementation of large parts. Not quite fun, but definitely worth it.

The strategy is:

Implement the SCCP SCOC state machines for connection-oriented SCCP (of which Iu and A interface are probably the only users) using Osmcoom Finite State Machines (osmo_fsm).
Migrate the existing SUA code on top of that, maintaining the existing osmo_prim based SCCP User SAP
Implement SCCP to SUA and vice-versa message transcoding to makes sure the bulk of the code has to deal only with one message format (parsed SUA).
Introduce a MTP SAP at the lower boundary of the SCCP code
Implement xUA ASP and AS statemachines using osmo_fsm and add ASPTM/ASPSM support to SUA (was missing so far) * Implement
Implement M3UA using the xUA ASP and AS FSMs as well as the general xUA message encoder/decoder, offering the MTP SAP toward SCCP

And then finally stack all those bits on top of each other, rendering a fairly clean and modern implementation that can be used with the IuCS of the virtually unmodified OsmmoHNBGW, OsmoCSCN and OsmoSGSN for testing.

Next steps in the direction of the AoIP are:

Implementation of the MTP-SAP based on the IPA transport
Binding the new SCCP code on top of that
Converting OsmoBSC code base to use the SCCP-User-SAP for its signaling connection

From that point onwards, OsmoBSC doesn't care anymore whether it transports the BSSAP/BSSMAP messages of the A interface over SCCP/IPA/TCP/IP (SCCPlite) SCCP/M3UA/SCTP/IP (3GPP AoIP), or even something like SUA/SCTP/IP.

However, the 3GPP AoIP specs (unlike SCCPlite) actually modify the BSSAP/BSSMAP payload. Rather than using Circuit Identifier Codes and then mapping the CICs to UDP ports based on some secret conventions, they actually encapsulate the IP address and UDP port information for the RTP streams. This is of course the cleaner and more flexible approach, but it means we'll have to do some further changes inside the actual BSC code to accommodate this.

Testing (not only) telecom protocols

Harald Welte — Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:00:00 GMT

When implementing any kind of communication protocol, one always dreams of some existing test suite that one can simply run against the implementation to check if it performs correct in at least those use cases that matter to the given application.

Of course in the real world, there rarely are protocols where this is true. If test specifications exist at all, they are often just very abstract texts for human consumption that you as the reader should implement yourself.

For some (by far not all) of the protocols found in cellular networks, every so often I have seen some formal/abstract machine-parseable test specifications. Sometimes it was TTCN-2, and sometimes TTCN-3.

If you haven't heard about TTCN-3, it is basically a way to create functional tests in an abstract description (textual + graphical), and then compile that into an actual executable tests suite that you can run against the implementation under test.

However, when I last did some research into this several years ago, I couldn't find any Free / Open Source tools to actually use those formally specified test suites. This is not a big surprise, as even much more fundamental tools for many telecom protocols are missing, such as good/complete ASN.1 compilers, or even CSN.1 compilers.

To my big surprise I now discovered that Ericsson had released their (formerly internal) TITAN TTCN3 Toolset as Free / Open Source Software under EPL 1.0. The project is even part of the Eclipse Foundation. Now I'm certainly not a friend of Java or Eclipse by all means, but well, for running tests I'd certainly not complain.

The project also doesn't seem like it was a one-time code-drop but seems very active with many repositories on gitub. For example for the core module, titan.core shows plenty of activity on an almost daily basis. Also, binary releases for a variety of distributions are made available. They even have a video showing the installation ;)

If you're curious about TTCN-3 and TITAN, Ericsson also have made available a great 200+ pages slide set about TTCN-3 and TITAN.

I haven't yet had time to play with it, but it definitely is rather high on my TODO list to try.

ETSI provides a couple of test suites in TTCN-3 for protocols like DIAMETER, GTP2-C, DMR, IPv6, S1AP, LTE-NAS, 6LoWPAN, SIP, and others at http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/ (It's also the first time I've seen that ETSI has a SVN server. Everyone else is using git these days, but yes, revision control systems rather than periodic ZIP files is definitely a big progress. They should do that for their reference codecs and ASN.1 files, too.

I'm not sure once I'll get around to it. Sadly, there is no TTCN-3 for SCCP, SUA, M3UA or any SIGTRAN related stuff, otherwise I would want to try it right away. But it definitely seems like a very interesting technology (and tool).

Osmocom Conference 2017 on April 21st

Harald Welte — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:00:00 GMT

I'm very happy that in 2017, we will have the first ever technical conference on the Osmocom cellular infrastructure projects.

For many years, we have had a small, invitation only event by Osmocom developers for Osmocom developers called OsmoDevCon. This was fine for the early years of Osmocom, but during the last few years it became apparent that we also need a public event for our many users. Those range from commercial cellular operators to community based efforts like Rhizomatica, and of course include the many research/lab type users with whom we started.

So now we'll have the public OsmoCon on April 21st, back-to-back with the invitation-only OsmoDevcon from April 22nd through 23rd.

I'm hoping we can bring together a representative sample of our user base at OsmoCon 2017 in April. Looking forward to meet you all. I hope you're also curious to hear more from other users, and of course the development team.

Regards,: Harald

33C3 talk on dissecting cellular modems

Harald Welte — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:00:00 GMT

Yesterday, together with Holger 'zecke' Freyther, I co-presented at 33C3 about Dissectiong modern (3G/4G) cellular modems.

This presentation covers some of our recent explorations into a specific type of 3G/4G cellular modems, which next to the regular modem/baseband processor also contain a Cortex-A5 core that (unexpectedly) runs Linux.

We want to use such modems for building self-contained M2M devices that run the entire application inside the modem itself, without any external needs except electrical power, SIM card and antenna.

Next to that, they also pose an ideal platform for testing the Osmocom network-side projects for running GSM, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS and HSPA cellular networks.

You can find the Slides and the Video recordings in case you're interested in more details about our work.

The results of our reverse engineering can be found in the wiki at http://osmocom.org/projects/quectel-modems/wiki together with links to the various git repositories containing related tools.

As with all the many projects that I happen to end up doing, it would be great to get more people contributing to them. If you're interested in cellular technology and want to help out, feel free to register at the osmocom.org site and start adding/updating/correcting information to the wiki.

You can e.g. help by

playing with the modem and documenting your findings
reviewing the source code released by Qualcomm + Quectel and documenting your findings
help us to create a working OE build with our own kernel and rootfs images as well as opkg package feeds for the modems
help reverse engineering DIAG and QMI protocols as well as the open source programs to interact with them

Nuand abusing the term "Open Source" for non-free Software

Harald Welte — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:00:00 GMT

Back in late April, the well-known high-quality SDR hardware company Nuand published a blog post about an Open Source Release of a VHDL ADS-B receiver.

I was quite happy at that time about this, and bookmarked it for further investigation at some later point.

Today I actually looked at the source code, and more by coincidence noticed that the LICENSE file contains a license that is anything but Open Source: The license is a "free for evaluation only" license, and it is only valid if you run the code on an actual Nuand board.

Both of the above are clearly not compatible with any of the well-known and respected definitions of Open Source, particularly not the official Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative.

I cannot even start how much this makes me upset. This is once again openwashing, where something that clearly is not Free or Open Source Software is labelled and marketed as such.

I don't mind if an author chooses to license his work under a proprietary license. It is his choice to do so under the law, and it generally makes such software utterly unattractive to me. If others still want to use it, it is their decision. However, if somebody produces or releases non-free or proprietary software, then they should make that very clear and not mis-represent it as something that it clearly isn't!

Open-washing only confuses everyone, and it tries to market the respective company or product in a light that it doesn't deserve. I believe the proper English proverb is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes.

I strongly believe the community must stand up against such practise and clearly voice that this is not something generally acceptable or tolerated within the Free and Open Source software world. It's sad that this is happening more frequently, like recently with OpenAirInterface (see related blog post).

I will definitely write an e-mail to Nuand management requesting to correct this mis-representation. If you agree with my posting, I'd appreciate if you would contact them, too.

Osmocom.org GTP-U kernel implementation merged mainline

Harald Welte — Thu, 26 May 2016 04:00:00 GMT

Have you ever used mobile data on your phone or using Tethering?

In packet-switched cellular networks (aka mobile data) from GPRS to EDGE, from UMTS to HSPA and all the way into modern LTE networks, there is a tunneling protocol called GTP (GPRS Tunneling Protocol).

This was the first cellular protocol that involved transport over TCP/IP, as opposed to all the ISDN/E1/T1/FrameRelay world with their weird protocol stacks. So it should have been something super easy to implement on and in Linux, and nobody should have had a reason to run a proprietary GGSN, ever.

However, the cellular telecom world lives in a different universe, and to this day you can be safe to assume that all production GGSNs are proprietary hardware and/or software :(

In 2002, Jens Jakobsen at Mondru AB released the initial version of OpenGGSN, a userspace implementation of this tunneling protocol and the GGSN network element. Development however ceased in 2005, and we at the Osmocom project thus adopted OpenGGSN maintenance in 2016.

Having a userspace implementation of any tunneling protocol of course only works for relatively low bandwidth, due to the scheduling and memory-copying overhead between kernel, userspace, and kernel again.

So OpenGGSN might have been useful for early GPRS networks where the maximum data rate per subscriber is in the hundreds of kilobits, but it certainly is not possible for any real operator, particularly not at today's data rates.

That's why for decades, all commonly used IP tunneling protocols have been implemented inside the Linux kernel, which has some tunneling infrastructure used with tunnels like IP-IP, SIT, GRE, PPTP, L2TP and others.

But then again, the cellular world lives in a universe where Free and Open Source Software didn't exit until OpenBTS and OpenBSC changed all o that from 2008 onwards. So nobody ever bothered to add GTP support to the in-kernel tunneling framework.

In 2012, I started an in-kernel implementation of GTP-U (the user plane with actual user IP data) as part of my work at sysmocom. My former netfilter colleague and current netfilter core team leader Pablo Neira was contracted to bring it further along, but unfortunately the customer project funding the effort was discontinued, and we didn't have time to complete it.

Luckily, in 2015 Andreas Schultz of Travelping came around and has forward-ported the old code to a more modern kernel, fixed the numerous bugs and started to test and use it. He also kept pushing Pablo and me for review and submission, thanks for that!

Finally, in May 2016, the code was merged into the mainline kernel, and now every upcoming version of the Linux kernel will have a fast and efficient in-kernel implementation of GTP-U. It is configured via netlink from userspace, where you are expected to run a corresponding daemon for the control plane, such as either OpenGGSN, or the new GGSN + PDN-GW implementation in Erlang called erGW.

You can find the kernel code at drivers/net/gtp.c, and the userspace netlink library code (libgtpnl) at git.osmocom.org.

I haven't done actual benchmarking of the performance that you can get on modern x86 hardware with this, but I would expect it to be the same of what you can also get from other similar in-kernel tunneling implementations.

Now that the cellular industry has failed for decades to realize how easy and little effort would have been needed to have a fast and inexpensive GGSN around, let's see if now that other people did it for them, there will be some adoption.

If you're interested in testing or running a GGSN or PDN-GW and become an early adopter, feel free to reach out to Andreas, Pablo and/or me. The osmocom-net-gprs mailing list might be a good way to discuss further development and/or testing.

Slovenian student sentenced for detecting TETRA flaws using OsmocomTETRA

Harald Welte — Sat, 21 May 2016 16:00:00 GMT

According to some news report, including this report at softpedia, a 26 year old student at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security in Maribor, Slovenia has received a suspended prison sentence for finding flaws in Slovenian police and army TETRA network using OsmocomTETRA

As the Osmocom project leader and main author of OsmocomTETRA, this is highly disturbing news to me. OsmocomTETRA was precisely developed to enable people to perform research and analysis in TETRA networks, and to audit their safe and secure configuration.

If a TETRA network (like any other network) is configured with broken security, then the people responsible for configuring and operating that network are to be blamed, and not the researcher who invests his personal time and effort into demonstrating that police radio communications safety is broken. On the outside, the court sentence really sounds like "shoot the messenger". They should instead have jailed the people responsible for deploying such an insecure network in the first place, as well as those responsible for not doing the most basic air-interface interception tests before putting such a network into production.

According to all reports, the student had shared the results of his research with the authorities and there are public detailed reports from 2015, like the report (in Slovenian) at https://podcrto.si/vdor-v-komunikacijo-policije-razkril-hude-varnostne-ranljivosti-sistema-tetra/.

The statement that he should have asked the authorities for permission before starting his research is moot. I've seen many such cases and you would normally never get permission to do this, or you would most likely get no response from the (in)competent authorities in the first place.

From my point of view, they should give the student a medal of honor, instead of sentencing him. He has provided a significant service to the security of the public sector communications in his country.

To be fair, the news report also indicates that there were other charges involved, like impersonating a police officer. I can of course not comment on those.

Please note that I do not know the student or his research first-hand, nor did I know any of his actions or was involved in them. OsmocomTETRA is a Free / Open Source Software project available to anyone in source code form. It is a vital tool in demonstrating the lack of security in many TETRA networks, whether networks for public safety or private networks.

Developers wanted for Osmocom GSM related work

Harald Welte — Sun, 01 May 2016 16:00:00 GMT

Right now I'm feeling sad. I really shouldn't, but I still do.

Many years ago I started OpenBSC and Osmocom in order to bring Free Software into an area where it barely existed before: Cellular Infrastructure. For the first few years, it was "just for fun", without any professional users. A FOSS project by enthusiasts. Then we got some commercial / professional users, and with them funding, paying for e.g. Holger and my freelance work. Still, implementing all protocol stacks, interfaces and functional elements of GSM and GPRS from the radio network to the core network is something that large corporations typically spend hundreds of man-years on. So funding for Osmocom GSM implementations was always short, and we always tried to make the best out of it.

After Holger and I started sysmocom in 2011, we had a chance to use funds from BTS sales to hire more developers, and we were growing our team of developers. We finally could pay some developers other than ourselves from working on Free Software cellular network infrastructure.

In 2014 and 2015, sysmocom got side-tracked with some projects where Osmocom and the cellular network was only one small part of a much larger scope. In Q4/2015 and in 2016, we are back on track with focussing 100% at Osmocom projects, which you can probably see by a lot more associated commits to the respective project repositories.

By now, we are in the lucky situation that the work we've done in the Osmocom project on providing Free Software implementations of cellular technologies like GSM, GPRS, EDGE and now also UMTS is receiving a lot of attention. This attention translates into companies approaching us (particularly at sysmocom) regarding funding for implementing new features, fixing existing bugs and short-comings, etc. As part of that, we can even work on much needed infrastructural changes in the software.

So now we are in the opposite situation: There's a lot of interest in funding Osmocom work, but there are few people in the Osmocom community interested and/or capable to follow-up to that. Some of the early contributors have moved into other areas, and are now working on proprietary cellular stacks at large multi-national corporations. Some others think of GSM as a fun hobby and want to keep it that way.

At sysmocom, we are trying hard to do what we can to keep up with the demand. We've been looking to add people to our staff, but right now we are struggling only to compensate for the regular fluctuation of employees (i.e. keep the team size as is), let alone actually adding new members to our team to help to move free software cellular networks ahead.

I am struggling to understand why that is. I think Free Software in cellular communications is one of the most interesting and challenging frontiers for Free Software to work on. And there are many FOSS developers who love nothing more than to conquer new areas of technology.

At sysmocom, we can now offer what would have been my personal dream job for many years:

paid work on Free Software that is available to the general public, rather than something only of value to the employer
interesting technical challenges in an area of technology where you will not find the answer to all your problems on stackoverflow or the like
work in a small company consisting almost entirely only of die-hard engineers, without corporate managers, marketing departments, etc.
work in an environment free of Microsoft and Apple software or cloud services; use exclusively Free Software to get your work done

I would hope that more developers would appreciate such an environment. If you're interested in helping FOSS cellular networks ahead, feel free to have a look at http://sysmocom.de/jobs or contact us at jobs@sysmocom.de. Together, we can try to move Free Software for mobile communications to the next level!

You can now install a GSM network using apt-get

Harald Welte — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 16:00:00 GMT

This is great news: You can now install a GSM network using apt-get!

Thanks to the efforts of Debian developer Ruben Undheim, there's now an OpenBSC (with all its flavors like OsmoBSC, OsmoNITB, OsmoSGSN, ...) package in the official Debian repository.

Here is the link to the e-mail indicating acceptance into Debian: https://tracker.debian.org/news/755641

I think for the past many years into the OpenBSC (and wider Osmocom) projects I always assumed that distribution packaging is not really something all that important, as all the people using OpenBSC surely would be technical enough to build it from the source. And in fact, I believe that building from source brings you one step closer to actually modifying the code, and thus contribution.

Nevertheless, the project has matured to a point where it is not used only by developers anymore, and particularly also (god beware) by people with limited experience with Linux in general. That such people still exist is surprisingly hard to realize for somebody like myself who has spent more than 20 years in Linux land by now.

So all in all, today I think that having packages in a Distribution like Debian actually is important for the further adoption of the project - pretty much like I believe that more and better public documentation is.

Looking forward to seeing the first bug reports reported through bugs.debian.org rather than https://projects.osmocom.org/ . Once that happens, we know that people are actually using the official Debian packages.

As an unrelated side note, the Osmocom project now also has nightly builds available for Debian 7.0, Debian 8.0 and Ubunut 14.04 on both i586 and x86_64 architecture from https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/network:osmocom:nightly. The nightly builds are for people who want to stay on the bleeding edge of the code, but who don't want to go through building everything from scratch. See Holgers post on the openbsc mailing list for more information.

Open Source mobile communications, security research and contributions

Harald Welte — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:00:00 GMT

While preparing my presentation for the Troopers 2016 TelcoSecDay I was thinking once again about the importance of having FOSS implementations of cellular protocol stacks, interfaces and network elements in order to enable security researches (aka Hackers) to work on improving security in mobile communications.

From the very beginning, this was the motivation of creating OpenBSC and OsmocomBB: To enable more research in this area, to make it at least in some ways easier to work in this field. To close a little bit of the massive gap on how easy it is to do applied security research (aka hacking) in the TCP/IP/Internet world vs. the cellular world.

We have definitely succeeded in that. Many people have successfully the various Osmocom projects in order to do cellular security research, and I'm very happy about that.

However, there is a back-side to that, which I'm less happy about. In those past eight years, we have not managed to attract significant amount of contributions to the Osmocom projects from those people that benefit most from it: Neither from those very security researchers that use it in the first place, nor from the Telecom industry as a whole.

I can understand that the large telecom equipment suppliers may think that FOSS implementations are somewhat a competition and thus might not be particularly enthusiastic about contributing. However, the story for the cellular operators and the IT security crowd is definitely quite different. They should have no good reason not to contribute.

So as a result of that, we still have a relatively small amount of people contributing to Osmocom projects, which is a pity. They can currently be divided into two groups:

the enthusiasts: People contributing because they are enthusiastic about cellular protocols and technologies.
the commercial users, who operate 2G/2.5G networks based on the Osmocom protocol stack and who either contribute directly or fund development work at sysmocom. They typically operate small/private networks, so if they want data, they simply use Wifi. There's thus not a big interest or need in 3G or 4G technologies.

On the other hand, the security folks would love to have 3G and 4G implementations that they could use to talk to either mobile devices over a radio interface, or towards the wired infrastructure components in the radio access and core networks. But we don't see significant contributions from that sphere, and I wonder why that is.

At least that part of the IT security industry that I know typically works with very comfortable budgets and profit rates, and investing in better infrastructure/tools is not charity anyway, but an actual investment into working more efficiently and/or extending the possible scope of related pen-testing or audits.

So it seems we might want to think what we could do in order to motivate such interested potential users of FOSS 3G/4G to contribute to it by either writing code or funding associated developments...

If you have any thoughts on that, feel free to share them with me by e-mail to laforge@gnumonks.org.

Osmocom.org migrating to redmine

Harald Welte — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:00:00 GMT

In 2008, we started bs11-abis, which was shortly after renamed to OpenBSC. At the time it seemed like a good idea to use trac as the project management system, to have a wiki and an issue tracker.

When further Osmocom projects like OsmocomBB, OsmocomTETRA etc. came around, we simply replicated that infrastructure: Another trac instance with the same theme, and a shared password file.

The problem with this (and possibly the way we used it) is:

it doesn't scale, as creating projects is manual, requires a sysadmin and is time-consuming. This meant e.g. SIMtrace was just a wiki page in the OsmocomBB trac installation + associated http redirect, causing some confusion.
issues can not easily be moved from one project to another, or have cross-project relationships (like, depend on an issue in another project)
we had to use an external planet in order to aggregate the blog of each of the trac instances
user account management the way we did it required shell access to the machine, meaning user account applications got dropped due to the effort involved. My apologies for that.

Especially the lack of being able to move pages and tickets between trac's has resulted in a suboptimal use of the tools. If we first write code as part of OpenBSC and then move it to libosmocore, the associated issues + wiki pages should be moved to a new project.

At the same time, for the last 5 years we've been successfully using redmine inside sysmocom to keep track of many dozens of internal projects.

So now, finally, we (zecke, tnt, myself) have taken up the task to migrate the osmocom.org projects into redmine. You can see the current status at http://projects.osmocom.org/. We could create a more comprehensive project hierarchy, and give libosmocore, SIMtrace, OsmoSGSN and many others their own project.

Thanks to zecke for taking care of the installation/sysadmin part and the initial conversion!

Unfortunately the conversion from trac to redmine wiki syntax (and structure) was not as automatic and straight-forward as one would have hoped. But after spending one entire day going through the most important wiki pages, things are looking much better now. As a side effect, I have had a more comprehensive look into the history of all of our projects than ever before :)

Still, a lot of clean-up and improvement is needed until I'm happy, particularly splitting the OpenBSC wiki into separate OsmoBSC, OsmoNITB, OsmoBTS, OsmoPCU and OsmoSGSN wiki's is probably still going to take some time.

If you would like to help out, feel free to register an account on projects.osmocom.org (if you don't already have one from the old trac projects) and mail me for write access to the project(s) of your choice.

Possible tasks include

putting pages into a more hierarchic structure (there's a parent/child relationship in redmine wikis)
fixing broken links due to page renames / wiki page moves
creating a new redmine 'Project' for your favorite tool that has a git repo on http://git.osmocom.org/ and writing some (at least initial) documentation about it.

You don't need to be a software developer for that!

Some update on recent OsmoBTS changes

Harald Welte — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:00:00 GMT

After quite some time of gradual bug fixing and improvement, there have been quite some significant changes being made in OsmoBTS over the last months.

Just a quick reminder: In Fall 2015 we finally merged the long-pending L1SAP changes originally developed by Jolly, introducing a new intermediate common interface between the generic part of OsmoBTS, and the hardware/PHY specific part. This enabled a clean structure between osmo-bts-sysmo (what we use on the sysmoBTS) and osmo-bts-trx (what people with general-purpose SDR hardware use).

The L1SAP changes had some fall-out that needed to be fixed, not a big surprise with any change that big.

More recently however, three larger changes were introduced:

phy_link / phy_instance abstraction

There now is the concept of a phy_link, each of which can have multiple phy_instances. Each instance represents one baseband transceiver, i.e. a software or hardware unit driving a TRX inside a BTS.

Every BTS model has been converted to use this new abstraction layer.

proper Multi-TRX support

Based on the above phy_link/phy_instance infrastructure, one can map each phy_instance to one TRX by means of the VTY / configuration file.

The core of OsmoBTS now supports any number of TRXs, leading to flexible Multi-TRX support.

OCTPHY support

A Canadian company called Octasic has been developing a custom GSM PHY for their custom multi-core DSP architecture (OCTDSP). Rather than re-inventing the wheel for everything on top of the PHY, they chose to integrate OsmoBTS on top of it. I've been working at sysmocom on integrating their initial code into OsmoBTS, rendering a new osmo-bts-octphy backend.

This back-end has also recently been ported to the phy_link/phy_instance API and is Multi-TRX ready. You can both run multiple TRX in one DSP, as well as have multiple DSPs in one BTS, paving the road for scalability.

osmo-bts-octphy is now part of OsmoBTS master.

Corresponding changes to OsmoPCU (for full GPRS support on OCTPHY) are currently been worked on by Max at sysmocom.

Litecell 1.5 PHY support

Another Canadian company (Nutaq/Nuran) has been building a new BTS called Litecell 1.5. They also implemented OsmoBTS support, based on the osmo-bts-sysmo code. We've been able to integrate that code with the above-mentioned phy_link/phy_interface in order to support the MultiTRX capability of this hardware.

Litecell 1.5 MultiTRX capability has also been integrated with OsmoPCU.

osmo-bts-litecell15 is now part of OsmoBTS master.

Summary

2016 starts as the OsmoBTS year of MultiTRX.
2016 also starts as a year of many more hardware choices for OsmoBTS
we see more commercial adoption of OsmoBTS outside of the traditional options of sysmocom and Fairwaves

OsmoDevCon 2013 preparation update

Harald Welte — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:00:00 GMT

OsmoDevCon 2013 is getting closer every day, and I'm very much looking forward to meet the fellow developers of the various Osmcoom sub-projects. Organization-wise, the catering has now been sorted out, and Holger has managed to get a test license for two ARFCN from the regulatory body without any trouble.

This means that we're more or less all set. The key needs to be picked up from IN-Berlin, and we need to bring some extra extension cords, ethernet switch, power cords and other gear, but that's really only very minor tasks.

There's not as much formal schedule as we used to have last year, which is good as I hope it means we can focus on getting actual work done, as opposed to spending most of the time updating one another about our respective work and progress.

Short report on the first Osmocom User Group meeting in Bavaria

Harald Welte — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:00:00 GMT

It's already one week in the past, but I'm only now finding some time to report on the first Osmocom User Group meeting in Bavaria.

All-in-all, there were 6 people attending, some people already known in the community, but also two completely new faces, which is great.

Dieter gave us a tour of his large BTS equipment, including a Nokia Ultrasite and an Ericsson RBS 2206. We had an introduction round where the participants could get to know each other a bit. Finally, we spoke about a variety of topics, from OsmocomBB to SIMtrace, SIM/SAT/STK security, the CC32RS512 and of course OpenBSC and the sysmoBTS.

On the day after the meeting I also had the pleasure of attempting to get the RBS2206 working with OpenBSC. Unfortunately there was no success, but still a number of bugs in the OM2000 / RBS2000 code in OpenBSC that had been found and fixed.

I'd like to thank Dieter Spaar for organizing and hosting the event, taking care of the Bavarian sausage + cheese platter for lunch.

I did not create rtl-sdr / librtlsdr

Harald Welte — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:00:00 GMT

In recent weeks, the number of private e-mails I receive about rtl-sdr has increased significantly. This is odd for at least two reasons:

First, I didn't create rtl-sdr and was not involved in its creation with the tiny exception of writing an e4k tuner driver for osmo-sdr, which was then used in a variety of rtl-sdr software.

Second, you should never contact the (presumed) software author in a private e-mail, but use the respective project mailing list. There is a community of developers, contributors and users out there, and it is a waste of everyone's time if you communicate by 1:1 private e-mail rather than enlightening the mailing list.

We're now working on a UMA/GAN controller

Harald Welte — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:00:00 GMT

We've pondered it a couple of times in the past whether we should implement an UMA/GAN controller (UNC/GANC). GAN (formerly called UMA) is a method by which you can tunnel GSM/3GPP Layer3 signalling (Mobility Management, SMS, Call Control) over an IP based bearer such as 802.11 (WiFi).

The idea was that mobile phones that support both a GSM/3G radio as well as WiFi could then simply use WiFi to connect to their mobile operator. This has been deployed around 2007/2008 by some operators such as T-Mobile USA as well as Orange UK. Today it seems that not many operators have caught up and UMA/GAN is mostly a legacy technology, last but not least due to very few phones actually implementing it.

Nonetheless, there are some markets and applications where UMA/GAN is useful. We (Dieter and I) now have managed to secure a contract for an Osmocom implementation based on OpenBSC (and libosmogsm, libosmo-sccp, ...). The beauty is that from L3 up, it is just regular GSM, no change needed at all. Only the transport layer is different: IPsec with TCP + GAN is the bearer, instead of LAPDm/RSL in classic GSM networks.

Another good part unrelated to UMA/GAN is: This will finally force us to clean up the separation between the MSC and BSC part in OsmoNITB (in order to replace the BSC part with the GANC).

Progress has been good so far, the SEGW (IPsec with EAP-SIM) has been configured, and a simplistic start of a GAN protocol implementation gets us through DISCOVERY, REGISTRATION and up to the point where the MS is sending the LOCATION UPDATE message. If you are curious how the protocol actually looks like, I've attached a sample pcap file to the WRTU54G-TM page in the OpenBSC wiki. The source code can be found in the laforge/ganc branch of openbsc.git.

osmo-lea6t-gps timing module DIY kits available

Harald Welte — Sat, 19 May 2012 19:00:00 GMT

Due to lots of other work, it took quite some time between my initial blog post about the omso-lea6t-gps board and the point where we are able to offically sell kits in the sysmocom webshop. The primary reason is: The people for whom we primarily built the board (i.e. the Osmocom developers) all have one and are happy with it ;)

But repeated inquiries by e-mail and otherwise have shown there is more interest. However, for a hand ful of boards we cannot make an automated production run in a SMT assembly line. So for the time being, we are only selling DYI kits, consisting of a digikey-packaged component kit including all components, plus the PCB, as well as the LEA-6T module.

Anyone who is interested in such a timing module DIY kit can now order from the sysmocom webshop.

More information on the project, including design materials like schematics can be found at the Osmocom wiki.

OsmoSDR boards available for interested developers

Harald Welte — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:00:00 GMT

I've posted about this on the OsmoSDR blog, so there's no point in copy+pasting it here.

There are still boards available, so feel free to order if you are interested in yet another exciting Osmocom embedded hardware/firmware/driver/software project!

Some follow-up on the Osmocom Berlin meetings

Harald Welte — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:00:00 GMT

We've now had the first two incarnations of the Osmocom Berlin User Group Meeting. The start was great, and we had probably something around 10 attendees. Some were the usual suspects like the various Osmocom developers living in Berlin. But we also had a number of new people attending each of both of the meetings, which is good.

To my big surprise people are even flying in from other parts of Europe in order to be able to attend. Last time from Sweden, and for the next meeting some folks from the Netherlands have announced themselves.

To an even bigger surprise, the attendee from Sweden announced that he is working for an Ericsson research lab, and apparently they are using OsmocomBB quite a bit inside that lab. They think it's a great tool, and apparently nothing else with the same flexibility (i.e. full source code) is at their hands that can compete.

On the one hand it is surprising to see such a large traditional Telco supplier to start to use such amateur tools like OsmocomBB, which definitely have not had even a fraction of the testing (particularly with various operators in various countries) like the commercial protocol stacks.

On the other hand, if you think more about it, Ericsson is entirely a network equipment supplier today. They have spun off their baseband processor business to become part of ST-Ericsson, they have pulled out of Sony-Ericsson, sold their TEMS product line to Ascom and other bits and pieces to Tieto. So right now, if they need a MS-side protocol stack or engineering phones, they probably have to obtain what is available on the market. And that's unfortunately not all that great, as the products are either

Measurement devices aimed at mostly L1 testing / QA (Racal, Agilent, Rohde-Schwarz)
Trace mobiles primarily aimed at field testing (TEMS, Sagem OT) and while they provide traces they don't permit you to send arbitrary data or behave spec-incompliant
Mobile Phone development platforms (Qualcomm, MTK, Infinenon, ...) which don't necessarily give you the full source code to the stack, and are only available if you actually intend to build a handset

So all in all, the more I think about it, it is actually not too surprising that they ended up with OsmocomBB. It's free (as in free beer) and they get the full source code with it. You need a lot of skills and time to get it running and find your way around how to use it, but I guess if you're working in cellular protocols and embedded systems, it's not that hard.

Prototype smart card chips in DIL-40 case have arrived

Harald Welte — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:00:00 GMT

Finally, the first samples of the smart card chip (for the Osmocom CardOS project) have arrived. As opposed to the final smart cards, this one has been packaged in a DIL case instead of the usual thin credit-card sized plastic. The reason for this is quite simple: This way lots of I/O pins for debugging as well as JTAG can be accessible during COS development.

Here you can see the first incarnation of a veroboard connected to an adapter pcb inside an Omnikey smart card reader:

After confirming it worked, I soldered the wires directly to the adapter PCB, as can be seen here:

There is already a real PCB design that is currently manufactured, i.e. in a week or so there will be a picture of a clean, professionally-produced/etched PCB with all of the prototype pins exported.

In terms of the COS, I haven't done much more work than compared to the last posting, mainly due to a large number of other projects. But we will get there...

h-online article covering OpenBTS and OpenBSC

Harald Welte — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:00:00 GMT

You can find a 3-page article about OpenBTS, OpenBSC and related projects available from the h-online web site.

OsmoDevCon 2012 is over...

Harald Welte — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:00:00 GMT

We just finished the 4th and final day of the OsmoDevCon 2012. It contained four days of in-depth presentations and discussions related to Free Software communications systems, most notably OsmocomBB, OpenBSC, OpenBTS, OsmoNITB, SIMtrace, OsmoGMR, OsmoSDR, rtl-sdr and many more.

I think it was a great chance to make sure the key developers involved with those projects are up-to-date with what everyone else is hacking on. I was especially happy with the presentations of Holger's smalltalk implementation of certain GSM protocols/interfaces, and it seems my small informal Erlang intro has raised some interest.

If anything, the 4-day conference has shown that there is a massive amount of work going on in the various different projects, and that it has clearly grown beyond anything that a single person could still be involved in all the sub-projects.

Personally, I'm happy to see what has grown out of this "we have a BS-11, let's see what we can do with it" that Dieter and I started in 2008. Now we're no longer talking about BTS/A-bis/BSC, but about SS7, MSC, TCAP/MAP, SCCP, HLR, Erlang, smalltalk, DECT, SIM/USIM, COS, SDR, GMR/Thuraya, TETRA and more recently also femtocells as well as NodeBs.

In the spirit of that 2008 presentation Running your own GSM network using the BS-11, Dieter Spaar has now demonstrated his talk on Running your own UMTS network, using NSN or Ericsson NodeBs. I'm really excited to see where that will take us - despite the fact that due to the 5 MHz wide channels, it's pretty close to impossible to get the experimental spectrum licenses that most of us have been able to get in recent years for our work.

As an outlook, over the remaining year 2012, I see progress in the following areas:

osmo-nitb will get a VLR/HLR split (async database access)
we will build a stand-alone osmo-msc with A interface
the signerl TCAP/MAP implementations will be used in production
OsmoSDR firmware will be completed, the hardware will start shipping
a new card operating system (OsmoCOS) will emerge
a UMA gateway will be implemented
a Free Software GPRS/EDGE PCU and RLC/MAC implementation will appear
last but not least, sysmoBTS will start commercial shipment really soon now

I'd like to thank our host c-base for having us block their conference room for 4 days, as well as all attendees who have travelled from all parts of Europe, but even the United States and Russia to participate. There definitely will be another OsmoDevCon, though we don't know yet at which point in time.

Using a cheap (USD 20) DVB-T USB stick as SDR receiver for (not only) gnuradio

Harald Welte — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:00:00 GMT

Fellow Osmocom hacker Steve Markgraf has been working on what now seems to be the cheapest way to receive real-world radio signals for PC-based SDR like gnuradio: rtl-sdr. RTL refers to the RTL2832U chipset frequently used in such devices. It can be used to obtain 2.8 Ms/s of 8-bit I+Q samples.

Below is a picture (courtesy of Steve) how the hardware looks like:

Osmocom GPS timing source with u-blox LEA6-T

Harald Welte — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:00:00 GMT

Recently we have been looking for an inexpensive way to generate a high-accuracy clock source for E1 lines, as it is required by a number of classic BTSs that don't have a sufficiently accurate OCXO built-in.

Luckily, the Digium E1 cards like TE-410P have a timing connector, to which an 8.192 MHz signal can be injected. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any OCXOs around for that frequency. That's where the u-blox LEA-6T comes into play: It has a configurable TIMEPULSE2 output that can generate any frequency up to 10 MHz. We use this in our board to generate 8.192 Mhz and want to feed that into the Digium card.

So all we had to do is build a small board that contains the module and connector for antenna input, clock output and the obligatory 2.5mm stereo jack for the OsmocomBB-style UART:

Thanks to Sylvain for doing the schematics/PCB design, and thanks to Pablo for writing the code to configurea and activate the 8.192MHz output.

Once the design is verified, the schematics + gerber will be available, as well as board from the sysmocom webshop.

The next project on the horizon: A Free Software CardOS

Harald Welte — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:00:00 GMT

Now that we have a 100% free software GSM protocol stack and baseband firmware for the network and mobile phone side, the only remaining proprietary part is the SIM card. And what is a SIM card? It's a small embedded computer / SoC with integrated flash + RAM.

Once again, like in many other areas of the telecommunications industry, development of Free Software has been hampered by lack of available register-level hardware documentation. Without such information, how should you be able to program? Hardware without such documentation is an insult to every software developer.

The next problem is that typically, the Card Operating System (COS) is written into mask ROM of the smartcard SoC. Making such a mask is quite expensive, and it means that for every software version, different silicon will have to be produced. So unless you are going to have millions of units in quantity, it is unlikely that it would make economic sense.

However, in recent years, purely flash based smartcard chips have been available and getting less and less expensive. However, none of them (like the Atmel AT90SC7272 or similar devices) have freely available documentation. Furthermore, availability on the open market is somewhat of a problem, mainly because they have been used extensively by people cracking encrypted satellite TV channels. In recent years, the smartcard industry is trying hard to cut any kind of supply to that group of users.

However, luckily, we now see small/independent chip design houses in China picking up and producing their own smartcard chips. They are not only cheaper, but they simply hand out the documentation to anyone who asks them. No questions asked, no NDA required. Welcome to the promised land! That's what Free Software developers like:

Free access to documentation without any confidentiality agreements
development samples available at the same price as quantity pricing later on
inexpensive development hardware with JTAG access
reference source code provided without NDA
they are happy that somebody wants to develop for their hardware

As you can see, I am quite enthusiastic about this. I like this no-bullshit approach. No stupid marketing and sales droids who charge ridiculous fees for proprietary development tools that are inflexible and force developers to use one particular OS/IDE/toolchain.

I'm not sure how much time there will be, given the multitude of other projects that are all asking for attention. However, I think this is a chance that the Free Software community doesn't get every day. Let's hope some other people like bare iron programming in small embedded systems can get excited and we can create a FOSS COS. It doesn't have to be something serious. Something quite simple would be sufficient for the beginning. I'm not thinking of EAL4+ certification, multiple channels and public key crypto. SIM/USIM cards are simple, they just require a bit of filesystem read/write operations plus authentication. And luckily, SIM toolkit development doesn't have to be done in Java this way, either ;)

LaForge's home page (Open Source Mobile Communications)

Sometimes software development is a struggle

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 - Linux is broken

Chapter 3 - Again a broken card?

Fernvale Kits - Lack of Interest - Discount

Wireshark dissector for 3GPP CBSP - traces wanted!

OsmoCon 2018 CfP closes on 2018-05-30

OsmoDevCon 2018 retrospective

osmo-fl2k - Using USB-VGA dongles as SDR transmitter

How does it work?

osmo-fl2k and rtl-sdr

free riders

34C3 and its Osmocom GSM/UMTS network

Osmocom Review 2017

NITB Split

Testing

OsmoCon

SIGTRAN stack

OsmoGGSN

Osmocom jenkins test suite execution

Automatic Testing in Osmocom

OsmoSTP (M3UA/SUA)

OpenGGSN (GTP)

Further Work

IPv6 User Plane support in Osmocom

Preface

OpenGGSN IPv6 PDP Context Support

Summary

Virtual Um interface between OsmoBTS and OsmocomBB

FOSS misconceptions, still in 2017

The lack of basic FOSS understanding in Telecom

Management Summary

How the Osmocom GSM stack is funded

History

Funding by means of sysmocom product sales

Funding by means of R&D contracts

Funding by means of customer support

Funding by means of cross-subsizing from other business areas

Funding by grants

Funding by more BTS ports

Osmocom funding outside of sysmocom

State of funding

Summary

Playing back GSM RTP streams, RTP-HR bugs

Chapter 0: Problem Statement

Chapter 1: GSM Audio Pocket Knife

Chapter 2: Bugs in OsmoBTS GSM-HR

Chapter 3: Conclusions

OsmoDevCon 2017 Review

OsmoCon 2017 Review

SIGTRAN/SS7 stack in libosmo-sigtran merged to master

OsmoCon 2017 Updates: Travel Grants and Schedule

OsmoCon 2017 Schedule

OsmoCon 2017 Travel Grants

OsmoCon 2017 Social Event

Osmocom - personal thoughts

History

Is it worth it?

Satisfaction/Happiness

Project success?

Manual testing of Linux Kernel GTP module

Towards a real SIGTRAN/SS7 stack in libosmo-sigtran

Testing (not only) telecom protocols

Osmocom Conference 2017 on April 21st

33C3 talk on dissecting cellular modems

Nuand abusing the term "Open Source" for non-free Software

Osmocom.org GTP-U kernel implementation merged mainline

Slovenian student sentenced for detecting TETRA flaws using OsmocomTETRA

Developers wanted for Osmocom GSM related work

You can now install a GSM network using apt-get

Open Source mobile communications, security research and contributions

Osmocom.org migrating to redmine

Some update on recent OsmoBTS changes

phy_link / phy_instance abstraction

proper Multi-TRX support

OCTPHY support

Litecell 1.5 PHY support

Summary

OsmoDevCon 2013 preparation update