10:37 p.m.
---
Here's something that I'm having trouble understanding. The ublox
plugin creates 8 gprs_context atoms. As far as I can tell, this means
that ofono will allow it to activate 8 contexts simultaneously... right?
Why is the ublox plugin the only one that does this? Do other modems
not support multiple active contexts? Or is this plugin wrong?
If I were to follow the model of other plugins, the below patch would
seem appropriate...
A bit of insight here would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jonas
plugins/ublox.c | 13 +++----------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/plugins/ublox.c b/plugins/ublox.c
index dc001765..3ce60236 100644
--- a/plugins/ublox.c
+++ b/plugins/ublox.c
@@ -384,8 +384,6 @@ static void ublox_post_sim(struct ofono_modem *modem)
struct ofono_gprs_context *gc;
GAtChat *chat = data->modem ? data->modem : data->aux;
const char *driver;
- /* Toby L2: Create same number of contexts as supported PDP contexts. */
- int ncontexts = data->flags & UBLOX_DEVICE_F_HIGH_THROUGHPUT_MODE ? 8 : 1;
int variant;
DBG("%p", modem);
@@ -409,14 +407,9 @@ static void ublox_post_sim(struct ofono_modem *modem)
variant = OFONO_VENDOR_UBLOX;
}
- while (ncontexts) {
- gc = ofono_gprs_context_create(modem, variant, driver, chat);
-
- if (gprs && gc)
- ofono_gprs_add_context(gprs, gc);
-
- --ncontexts;
- }
+ gc = ofono_gprs_context_create(modem, variant, driver, chat);
+ if (gprs && gc)
+ ofono_gprs_add_context(gprs, gc);
ofono_lte_create(modem,
ublox_model_to_id(data->model), "ubloxmodem", data->aux);
--
2.19.1
1:27 a.m.
Hi Jonas,
On 03/14/2019 05:37 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
---
Funny, I was looking at this code today and thought it was wrong. Was
going to point this out to you, but you beat me to it ;)
Here's something that I'm having trouble understanding. The
ublox
plugin creates 8 gprs_context atoms. As far as I can tell, this means
that ofono will allow it to activate 8 contexts simultaneously... right?
Correct. Each context driver added to gprs allows a concurrent context
to be activated. E.g. if you have 2 drivers, you can activate 2
contexts simultaneously. Obviously you need a high speed / ppp
interface for each active context.
Why is the ublox plugin the only one that does this? Do other
modems
not support multiple active contexts? Or is this plugin wrong?
From what I recall, ublox does claim to support multiple PDP contexts
active at the same time. However, I don't know how this works in
practice as you need a unique network interface for each one. As it
stands today, given the udevng detection logic, this plugin is wrong.
If I were to follow the model of other plugins, the below patch would
seem appropriate...
A bit of insight here would be appreciated.
There are drivers for USB based modems that do this properly. See
xmm7xxx for example. Multiple PDP context support was added to that
recently.
Modems that used multiplexing had support for multiple PDP contexts for
quite some time. E.g. plugins/ifx, etc.
Anyway, patch looks fine to me. Let me know if you want me to apply it
or you want to take a stab at fixing the detection logic.
Regards,
-Denis
7:42 a.m.
Hi Denis,
On 15/03/2019 02:27, Denis Kenzior wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On 03/14/2019 05:37 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> ---
>
Funny, I was looking at this code today and thought it was wrong. Was
going to point this out to you, but you beat me to it ;)
> Here's something that I'm having trouble understanding. The ublox
> plugin creates 8 gprs_context atoms. As far as I can tell, this means
> that ofono will allow it to activate 8 contexts simultaneously... right?
>
Correct. Each context driver added to gprs allows a concurrent context
to be activated. E.g. if you have 2 drivers, you can activate 2
contexts simultaneously. Obviously you need a high speed / ppp
interface for each active context.
> Why is the ublox plugin the only one that does this? Do other modems
> not support multiple active contexts? Or is this plugin wrong?
From what I recall, ublox does claim to support multiple PDP contexts
active at the same time. However, I don't know how this works in
practice as you need a unique network interface for each one. As it
stands today, given the udevng detection logic, this plugin is wrong.
Right, so the way this works is that the modem looks like either a
"bridge" or a "router". If configured as a "bridge", the
outbound
packet's source address is used to determine which context to use; if
configured as a "router", the outbound packet's destination _network_ is
used to determine which context to use and a default route is set via
the _first activated context_ for packets that don't match the network
of any active context. That's a mouthful...!!!
The short of it is that this probably works in practice.
Is it ok for the connection manager interface to see multiple active
contexts with the same Interface and the IP settings set to method
"dhcp". Will it run a DHCP client on each interface or is it expected
to be smart enough to recognize the common interface??? What would the
point be since the only thing that differs the contexts is the APN and
the connection manager shouldn't care about that particular detail...???
This all applies to "router" mode only, really.
In "bridge" mode, the above is probably moot since each context would
announce different IP settings and the connection manager would be
expected to apply those settings to the common interface. No idea if
this works in practice.
Do you know how these multiple, active contexts are used in practice?
In particular with regard to ofono?
>
> If I were to follow the model of other plugins, the below patch would
> seem appropriate...
>
> A bit of insight here would be appreciated.
There are drivers for USB based modems that do this properly. See
xmm7xxx for example. Multiple PDP context support was added to that
recently.
Modems that used multiplexing had support for multiple PDP contexts for
quite some time. E.g. plugins/ifx, etc.
Anyway, patch looks fine to me. Let me know if you want me to apply it
or you want to take a stab at fixing the detection logic.
From this, it sounds like the multiple gprs-context atoms are probably
correct. I'll take a look at the xmm7xxx driver and see how it handles
things.
Thanks,
Jonas
4:28 p.m.
Hi Jonas,
> From what I recall, ublox does claim to support multiple PDP
contexts
> active at the same time. However, I don't know how this works in
> practice as you need a unique network interface for each one. As it
> stands today, given the udevng detection logic, this plugin is wrong.
Right, so the way this works is that the modem looks like either a
"bridge" or a "router". If configured as a "bridge", the
outbound
packet's source address is used to determine which context to use; if
configured as a "router", the outbound packet's destination _network_ is
used to determine which context to use and a default route is set via
the _first activated context_ for packets that don't match the network
of any active context. That's a mouthful...!!!
Ugh. Both of these are really not ideal. I'd really rather have the
host manage all these details than having the modem do it. Oh well.
I take it that in bridged mode we should be setting multiple IP
addresses to the network interface?
The short of it is that this probably works in practice.
That depends. I suspect that it might not 'just work' for certain
classes of applications running on the host / application processor side.
Is it ok for the connection manager interface to see multiple active
contexts with the same Interface and the IP settings set to method
"dhcp". Will it run a DHCP client on each interface or is it expected
to be smart enough to recognize the common interface??? What would the
point be since the only thing that differs the contexts is the APN and
the connection manager shouldn't care about that particular detail...???
This all applies to "router" mode only, really.
uBlox is just being too smart here. The whole bridged vs router stuff
was never intended by 27.007. They made this all up themselves.
Neither oFono nor ConnMan were designed to handle such a setup.
The main issue will be for contexts used for MMS / OMA DM. My memory
from the Meego / Tizen days is fuzzy, but from what I recall we designed
oFono with the assumption that we will always get an IP address and a
separate interface for the MMS context.
There's also the proxy. MMS contexts frequently have a proxy associated
with them. Again, we assumed that if a proxy is set, then it is also in
a form of an IP address. The proxy is then added as a route on the
interface by oFono (see pri_setproxy for details). And in practical
terms there is no domain name resolution for these contexts. Everything
just goes to the proxy.
This was how e.g. mmsd was designed to work. See
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/ofono/mmsd.git. That project has
not been touched in some time though, but there are others that act very
similar.
In "bridge" mode, the above is probably moot since each context would
announce different IP settings and the connection manager would be
expected to apply those settings to the common interface. No idea if
this works in practice.
Right. Do note that oFono is responsible for setting the IP on the
interface. So in bridged mode, this would need to be fixed. Also, I
don't know whether connman supports multi-IP interfaces in the first place.
Another issue is that ConnMan ignores all contexts that are not of type
Internet. So for example, nobody (or at least neither oFono, nor
ConnMan) would set the domain name servers for MMS contexts.
Do you know how these multiple, active contexts are used in practice? In
particular with regard to ofono?
They are used, yes. MMS, OMA DM/device provisioning, etc.
>
>>
>> If I were to follow the model of other plugins, the below patch would
>> seem appropriate...
>>
>> A bit of insight here would be appreciated.
>
> There are drivers for USB based modems that do this properly. See
> xmm7xxx for example. Multiple PDP context support was added to that
> recently.
>
> Modems that used multiplexing had support for multiple PDP contexts
> for quite some time. E.g. plugins/ifx, etc.
>
> Anyway, patch looks fine to me. Let me know if you want me to apply
> it or you want to take a stab at fixing the detection logic.
From this, it sounds like the multiple gprs-context atoms are probably
correct. I'll take a look at the xmm7xxx driver and see how it handles
things.
So this is still debatable :)
Regards,
-Denis
6:41 a.m.
Hi Denis,
On 15/03/2019 17:28, Denis Kenzior wrote:
<snip>
uBlox is just being too smart here. The whole bridged vs router stuff
was never intended by 27.007. They made this all up themselves. Neither
oFono nor ConnMan were designed to handle such a setup.
The main issue will be for contexts used for MMS / OMA DM. My memory
from the Meego / Tizen days is fuzzy, but from what I recall we designed
oFono with the assumption that we will always get an IP address and a
separate interface for the MMS context.
There's also the proxy. MMS contexts frequently have a proxy associated
with them. Again, we assumed that if a proxy is set, then it is also in
a form of an IP address. The proxy is then added as a route on the
interface by oFono (see pri_setproxy for details). And in practical
terms there is no domain name resolution for these contexts. Everything
just goes to the proxy.
This was how e.g. mmsd was designed to work. See
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/ofono/mmsd.git. That project has
not been touched in some time though, but there are others that act very
similar.
OK, thanks for digging that out despite the cobwebs!
So, this is where I end up then:
i) MMS (and other) contexts are just IP endpoints, but they are all
identified by a "type"
ii) connman handles "Internet" contexts and ignores everything else...
iii) other applications (like mmsd) handle contexts of other types
iv) mmsd, unlike connman, expects the network interface associated with
the context to be fully configured... IP address, route, etc.
ofono is designed to expect a network interface for each context. For
this reason, it's pretty heavy-handed in its setup of the interface: it
assumes the interface isn't shared by other contexts and isn't careful
about maintaining settings coming from other contexts.
So the real impedance mismatch here for the case where a modem puts
multiple contexts behind a single network interface is the way ofono is
implemented.
ofono could be re-implemented here to add multiple IP addresses to a
single interface and to set routing accordingly (for MMS contexts only,
apparently... it looks like ofono does nothing currently for other
context types).
Another alternative is to have the gprs-context driver for affected
devices create "virtual network devices" (is this still a thing?) with
static IP addresses for all contexts. For the u-blox "router mode"
case, though, I can't figure out who runs the DHCP client... (and the
TOBY L4 is router-mode-only, so requiring bridge-mode is not an option).
Either way, this is a reasonably big undertaking. I don't think I want
to take this on without a concrete use-case presenting itself, first! :)
So given that, the right thing to do here is probably to just drop
multiple context support from the u-blox driver until ofono is modified
(someday) to handle multiple contexts behind a single network interface.
I will send a patch.
/Jonas
3:26 p.m.
Hi Jonas,
OK, thanks for digging that out despite the cobwebs!
No worries. Sorry I forgot to reply to this earlier.
So, this is where I end up then:
i) MMS (and other) contexts are just IP endpoints, but they are all
identified by a "type"
Right now yes. In theory you could have a DNS, routing, etc for these
contexts as well. In fact, once we introduce IMS contexts, this has to
be done anyway.
ii) connman handles "Internet" contexts and ignores
everything else...
Correct.
iii) other applications (like mmsd) handle contexts of other types
iv) mmsd, unlike connman, expects the network interface associated with
the context to be fully configured... IP address, route, etc.
Correct, at least at the moment
ofono is designed to expect a network interface for each context. For
this reason, it's pretty heavy-handed in its setup of the interface: it
assumes the interface isn't shared by other contexts and isn't careful
about maintaining settings coming from other contexts.
This is also what 3GPP intended, at least back in the multiplexing /
27.010 days. Now things become a bit more complex as you can tell.
Intel modems do actually expose multiple pseudo-ethernet devices for this.
So the real impedance mismatch here for the case where a modem puts
multiple contexts behind a single network interface is the way ofono is
implemented.
Correct.
ofono could be re-implemented here to add multiple IP addresses to a
single interface and to set routing accordingly (for MMS contexts only,
apparently... it looks like ofono does nothing currently for other
context types).
This gets tricky, but I assume that for 'bridged' mode we would need to
do this yes.
With router mode things become a bit simpler. Likely the only thing
needed on these is to just automagically setup routing for MMS/SIP
proxies. The only difference from what we have today would be that we
need to remove the corresponding routes when the MMS context goes down
(today oFono assumes that the entire interface is brought down) So it
wouldn't be that hard to implement actually. And since ConnMan ignores
non-Internet contexts, things would probably just work.
Someone needs to test that theory though. I don't have any ublox devices.
Another alternative is to have the gprs-context driver for affected
devices create "virtual network devices" (is this still a thing?) with
static IP addresses for all contexts. For the u-blox "router mode"
case, though, I can't figure out who runs the DHCP client... (and the
TOBY L4 is router-mode-only, so requiring bridge-mode is not an option).
We have been contemplating for a long time that DHCP needs to move out
of ConnMan and into the individual daemons, e.g. BlueZ, iwd, oFono. I
already started moving bits of DHCP into ell, but higher priority tasks
came up.
There was an earlier thread where weird device behaviors were described
(by Giacinto, I think?). E.g. a device would not succeed in context
activation until DHCP was run against the interface. So supporting such
devices with DHCP in ConnMan is a bit problematic and we have a fighting
chance with DHCP in oFono.
Either way, this is a reasonably big undertaking. I don't think I want
to take this on without a concrete use-case presenting itself, first! :)
Device Provisioning, Firmware update, MMS, IMS :)
So given that, the right thing to do here is probably to just drop
multiple context support from the u-blox driver until ofono is modified
(someday) to handle multiple contexts behind a single network interface.
I will send a patch.
For now I think that is the right approach.
Regards,
-Denis
1196
days inactive
1201
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Denis Kenzior -
Jonas Bonn