Hi, Have you seen this? http://openbts.sourceforge.net/background.html I guess, FreeSWITCH would be better for this ;) Regards, Tamas
OpenBTS is GPLv3... may have OS licensing issues trying to make that happen. -MC On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Tamas <jalsot@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Have you seen this? http://openbts.sourceforge.net/background.html
I guess, FreeSWITCH would be better for this ;)
Regards, Tamas
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Hi, It is almost certainly trivial to avoid licencing issues through the use of sockets. The overhead for socket communication would be no real issue in this case, as the processing for the GSM stack will be so heavy, you won't really notice the difference using sockets. The openbts site makes light of the GSM protocols. It has taken huge efforts over long periods for each GSM stack supplier to shake out their wares. That has typically involved extented evaluations of why certain specific spots on a network cause call drops (e.g. 50% of calls in cars emerging from this particular tunnel drop as they emerge). Achieving a usable stack is not for the faint hearted. Regards, Steve Michael Collins wrote:
OpenBTS is GPLv3... may have OS licensing issues trying to make that happen. -MC
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Tamas <jalsot@gmail.com <mailto:jalsot@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Have you seen this? http://openbts.sourceforge.net/background.html
I guess, FreeSWITCH would be better for this ;)
Regards, Tamas
participants (3)
-
Michael Collins
-
Steve Underwood
-
Tamas