On Apr 13, 2019, at 12:12 AM, Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 07:15:56PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> Agree. Sorry about that. No disrespect was intended, but I'm still not >> sure I understand the need for UDP encapsulation *as part of the >> protocol*. I guess saying "GSMTAP can optionally be encapsulated in UDP >> with the well-known port xyz" would be something else, and it'd make >> more sense to me than saying it has to be. > > Sure, like with most protocols you can wrap them in anything you want. > > Let me put it like this: > You don't have to run RTP inside UDP, you could equally put the RTP > frames in to SCTP or DCTP. It's just not what the original users of > the protocol/spec had envisioned, but it can for sure be done, and has > no side-effect other than not being interoperable with existing > implementations. Or you can just have LINKTYPE_RTP/DLT_RTP and supply them inside nothing. However, unlike RTP, there is no reason *not* to do that for GSMTAP - it's not as if the IP or UDP headers in a packet from a host supplying GSMTAP-encapsulated packets provide any information necessary or even useful for dissecting the encapsulated packets. Whether it's useful, or possible, to have any interfaces on a *host* with cellular modem connectivity supply the cellular-network traffic as packets with GSMTAP headers - which appears to be what Johannes is thinking of - is another matter (but even if the answer is no, there is, as per my other message, a use for a LINKTYPE_GSMTAP/DLT_GSMTAP header type). That might not be possible, as cellular modems, as you note, tend to hide a lot of lower-layer details from the host.
