AW: [review] LTE attach config and status

[Stelling2 Carsten]

I agree with Matthew. Both, the simple and non-simple interface should allow to explicitly set the CID. Having this implemented, all these odd configurations can be handled.

Von: matthew stanger [mailto:stangerm2 at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 19:29
An: Aleksander Morgado
Cc: Stelling2 Carsten; ModemManager (development)
Betreff: Re: [review] LTE attach config and status

 I don't think that CID=1 is always the one that the
module expects to use as initial EPS bearer
I'd agree, but so far the small set of carriers we've seen requiring specific PDP's have all been #1.

Didn't Verizon require to use CID=4 for the same purpose in their
modems?
Vzw is a little odd, they require their default APN in context #3, but apparently, and we've yet to make this work,
they(Vzw) say that if you use context #1, which auto populates with 'vzwadmin' will, after the first attach the carrier,
 self provision the rest of the context's.

Docomo in Japan wouldn't do 4G without use of context #1 populated.
SK Telecom in S. Korea wouldn't connect without using context #1, using blank context #1 populated other context's

I recall a patch were we allowed specifying the CID to use explicitly
yes, and the non-simple interface. We still use it, and without it those cases above would not work.


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:37 AM Aleksander Morgado <aleksander at aleksander.es<mailto:aleksander at aleksander.es>> wrote:
> 4  In 4G the 1 context (where default EPS bearer is created) generally does not require an APN, APN is required on other context to set up data sessions instead . In any case the rules are made by network operator
>

Unfortunately, I don't think that CID=1 is always the one that the
module expects to use as initial EPS bearer, that may depend on the
modem. So, if we were to add a logic that assumes "initial LTE bearer
settings are those in CID=1" then that would need to be tied to a
specific device.

Didn't Verizon require to use CID=4 for the same purpose in their
modems? (or something like that) @matthew stanger what was that about?
I recall a patch were we allowed specifying the CID to use explicitly
via Simple.Connect() for this very same purpose.

--
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/modemmanager-devel/attachments/20181128/4970e2ed/attachment.html>