Skip to content

Loading builds...

Changes

#106 (Feb 16, 2026, 4:20:45 PM)

pfcp: Trigger assoc_cb(false) upon Recovery Timestamp change

Signal cp_peer becomes disassociated to the user when the recovery
timestamp value changes.
The library will automatically try to re-associate after signalling the
association change.

Related: SYS#7294
Change-Id: I5400ae9c2f00b3c87a73aef5cebba67cf9434477
Pau Espin Pedrol at

#105 (Feb 16, 2026, 11:19:02 AM)

cp_peer: Implement local originated heartbeat procedure

Submit PFCP Hearbeat Request with configured interval,
and timeout after no PFCP Hearbeat Response received based on
configuration.

Upon timeout, the cp_peer assoc_cb() is called to notify the user that
the peer is considered not associated anymore. It will then try to
keep associating again automatically.

Default value for OSMO_PFCP_TIMER_HEARTBEAT_RESP is increased to 35s to
allow for a single Heartbeat Request packet loss.

Related: SYS#7294
Change-Id: I7efc0961e1ea39dd7f4cc6ba96be4cf5ce9a2d6c
Pau Espin Pedrol at

#104 (Feb 16, 2026, 11:19:02 AM)

Move struct osmo_pfcp_endpoint to pfcp_endpoint_private.h

Similar to what we have with pfcp_cp_peer_private.h.

Change-Id: Id3dcd1c2e086d40bbc7060d5e89aed5ee18249e1
Pau Espin Pedrol at

#103 (Feb 13, 2026, 12:59:50 PM)

cp_peer: Implement local originated heartbeat procedure

Submit PFCP Hearbeat Request with configured interval,
and timeout after no PFCP Hearbeat Response received based on
configuration.

Upon timeout, the cp_peer assoc_cb() is called to notify the user that
the peer is considered not associated anymore. It will then try to
keep associating again automatically.

Related: SYS#7294
Change-Id: I7efc0961e1ea39dd7f4cc6ba96be4cf5ce9a2d6c
Pau Espin Pedrol at

#102 (Jan 19, 2026, 5:48:17 PM)

Avoid marking rx PFCP Assoc Setup Req as duplicate

Newer versions of PFCP spec state that "A PFCP
function shall ignore the Recovery Timestamp
received in the PFCP Association Setup Request message."

Hence, there's no real way to make sure an incoming PFCP ASSOC
SETUP REQ is a duplicate or is simply a new message from a new instance
of the peer node which "decided" to use the same SeqNr as the previous
one. In that case, it's better to be on the safe side and process it to
tear down state rather than ignoring it and keeping old state. If it
turns out to be a duplicate (rare scenario), we'd maybe tear down some
stuff which would have been set up a few seconds ago.

Change-Id: Ia461550e6791aaf00d18e0310bb4f17fdd2a3f65
Pau Espin Pedrol at