Re: [PATCH 1/1] gtp: support SGSN-side tunnels

Pablo Neira Ayuso
2017-02-06T17:56:42Z

Hi Jonas,

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:33:07PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
>
> On 02/06/2017 12:08 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >Hi Jonas,
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:12:31AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> >>The GTP-tunnel driver is explicitly GGSN-side as it searches for PDP
> >>contexts based on the incoming packets _destination_ address. If we
> >>want to write an SGSN, then we want to be idenityfing PDP contexts
> >>based on _source_ address.
> >>
> >>This patch adds a "flags" argument at GTP-link creation time to specify
> >>whether we are on the GGSN or SGSN side of the tunnel; this flag is then
> >>used to determine which part of the IP packet to use in determining
> >>the PDP context.
> >So far the implementation that I saw in osmocom relies on userspace code
> >to tunnel data from ME to the SSGN/SGW running on the base station.
> >
> >The data we get from GGSN -> SGSN needs to be places into a SN-PDU (via
> >SNDCP) when sending it to the BTS, right? So I wonder how this can be
> >useful given that we would need to see real IP packets coming to the
> >SSGN that we tunnel into GTP.
>
> Fair enough. The use-case I am looking at involves PGW load-testing where
> the simulated load is generated locally on the SGSN so it _is_ seeing IP
> packets and the SNDCP is left out altogether. Perhaps this is too
> pathological to warrant messing with the upstream driver... I don't know:
> the symmetry does not cost much even if it's of limited use.

Thanks for explaining your use-case.

If some basic form of this load-testing tool ends up serving everyone,
ie. landing some code in the libgtpnl library that we can all use to
benchmark/stress test this driver, then I would be glad to take this.

Thanks!