From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8681867042116511165==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Alex J Lennon Subject: Re: Problems provisioning APN from SIMs Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:09:35 +0200 Message-ID: <557ADA0F.9000702@dynamicdevices.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <55715DDB.7090204@dynamicdevices.co.uk> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============8681867042116511165== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/06/2015 10:29, Alex J Lennon wrote: > > On 05/06/2015 01:48, Denis Kenzior wrote: >> Hi Marcel, >> >>> The actual MCC and MNC assignments are ITU T E.212 and the (U)SIM >>> Header of the ICCID is ITU T E.118 document. >>> >>> And as a side note, the (U)SIM Header is between 6 and 7 digits. The >>> MNC is between 2 and 3 digits. >> So in theory E212 should be enough. Each operator (MVNO or otherwise) >> should have its own MCC/MNC identifier. However, this practice came >> in too late to the game, so this is not true in reality. >> >> Many operators assigned MVNO SIMs out of their pool, resulting in >> chaos. Hence why DBs resort to playing tricks with EFspn, EFgid1, etc. >> >> I suspect newly issues SIMs do not have this problem, but it might >> still be relevant for SIMs issued in the past. > Thanks Denis, Marcel. I appreciate the responses. > > So, in essence there seems no good way to do this in the general case. > The core problem is that multiple operators have the same MCC/MNC, and > this is a result of virtual operators piggy-backing on top of > established operators and being given the same MCC/MNC. > > The mobile-broadband-providers XML document accurately expresses this, > but as a result provides multiple providers with the same MCC/MNC code > and there needs to be a good way to distinguish between them. > > Using the display name may work but strikes me as a potential can of > worms as this does not seem particularly controlled. > > For now I may just have to remove the virtual operators from the copy of > mobile-broadband-providers I use. > > Thanks/Regards, Alex > > _______________________________________________ > ofono mailing list > ofono(a)ofono.org > https://lists.ofono.org/mailman/listinfo/ofono > fwiw mobile-broadband-provider-info has now been updated to give O2 and Vodafone preference over the ASDA Mobile and Giff Gaff virtual operators. ref: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D750330 So with a patch for Ofono to support multiple APNs and this latest database O2/Vodafone SIMS should work out of the box in the UK. Regards, Alex --===============8681867042116511165==--