 Hello. Hello. This is a holiday for some folks. Or official holiday. See who joins. Greetings, Victor. We'll give it a few minutes. See who's joining. Some folks are taking today off as a holiday. So. You may have a short call. I posted the meeting next to the zoom chat. Put your name. Any agenda items. Yeah, I don't have a formal item, but I can ask some questions now. Just some questions. You want to drop those down. Or just. No, no, I have some questions regarding something I. Have a read about, learn about lately. All right. Well, let's give it a couple of minutes and see who joins. Okay. Please add your name. And we'll jump right in. To these notes, which questions. So let's see CFP is closed for cube con this past Sunday. They have a new. Network. Edge and telecom track. So hoping to see a lot of. New talks. That would be aligned in the interest for this working group. Cube con. Worked with Victor Morales. From Samsung and we posted a. Or submitted a CFP. Highlighting. That would will be highlighting best practices that we're seeing in. An FIO project. And related projects that seem to be. Showing community adoption of those. And that'll probably feed some of those are going to feed right back into this working group. The open source summit Europe. Should see the schedule announcement. This month. Other 10 days. MWC. Las Vegas. I see if he's closed on those earlier this month. See what that looks like. I've been hearing from folks. On this call and some other related calls that. Some people will be there. So maybe we'll have. Something related to the group. We'll announce is we're coming closer. We're starting to see these. Cube con. Native day. Events popping up. There was a KCD Columbia. In October. Victor was out and. There's a KCD Texas coming up. In October. Thank you. These could be some opportunities to get some talk on related things. During the last cube con. There was a lot of overlap between folks that were wanting to be. Related to the talk on community. The open compute. So. There were some folks that actually traveled. To go between. If anyone's. Seeing anything for these or planning on. Going. I think this one's going to be. We're going to see more overlap. No full request. I don't know if we have any new issues. No new issues. I'm not going to go through all these. I think the main one would be. This draft, but I'm going to hold on talking about. This one. This is related to one of the issues. Draft proposal for a best practice. And Victor, if you want to, if you, you said you have some questions. Yeah. Again. My question. I don't know. I don't know. Part of. Beginner question. So I have recently read about. The open. I just chose what. What available. So my understanding is. Right now the. The. There was a traditional ran. Which is mostly by. Like. Wenders. Ericsson, et cetera. That's a traditional run. And then there's. And then there's a project. That's also part of. In a foundation. Maximum. Megaman. That's, that's like a 4g, but. Including 5g as well. Ran. Oh, open source as well. And after that, there's also open run, which is, I guess. Another effort to have another. Next is the next generation run. Which is also. Part of that. The foundation. Networking. Foundation. Work. And then. On top of that, the open networking foundation. Which is not part of the foundation also have SD ran. Which is based on open run, but it's. It's based on open run. Using software and more. Suffer to find networking. Components. So. First of all, I get quite a question. Is that the correct. Landscape understanding. And second is, is there any other standard other than open run. In the open source community. So you're. Are you referring to. This. Yeah. Open run. I just caught an open run. I'm not sure. Run is another. Or just open run. Yes. Just how many. Open run flavors. Out there open source. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, well, I would say right now the. We're going to keep seeing. We're going to do things coming out. So there's a lot of. Different work. So. And a magma, the magma project, you mentioned that. That. Was Facebook or meta. It's now. I guess it's, you would think it's just. You know, Donated projects. So it's. There's a bunch of other companies. I don't think meta is. Actively. Pursuing this, but it seems like there's a bunch of other companies have been doing work on it. So this, I don't know for sure, like where, where things are going, but it doesn't seem. I guess dead. We'll probably see other stuff coming up. There's a lot of effort from. The various. Cloud providers to support some type of. Telcom area. And some of them are. Probably going to come up with something that will be more. Custom. But most of them. Most things that I've seen are. There's a lot of a lot more effort going back into this. Oh, Ram. And you have. Vendors that are talking about compliance. So if they ran. The. There's a few open source projects that are related. Open five GS. And then there's like the, on the radio side. So that's for the. The core. And then the radio. There's different projects, including one called. And gets SRS ran. But the O ran. There's. Specifications and stuff. And testing for. Validating. Does it actually work? Is it compatible? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I think we're going to talk with. A vendor. That says they're over in compatible on another. The idea would be they should work together. But. I wouldn't say there's. Here's the one thing with definitely different groups working on different things. Are you. What, what are you getting at? And Tom. I don't know if you've heard Victor, but. Who's. Mentioning different. Projects and stuff related to. This ran and core. Five projects and foundations. Victor. I'm trying to see like, what is the question or where are you going with it? Right now. Yeah. I think it's more coming up for interest actually because I worked for a telecom. As a database guide before. So I'm just interested in, you know, what options are there when technically what's the differences. Yeah, that's, that's about it at this point. It's just that more interesting. You can say landscape. Information. All right. So like the. 4g, 5g. Landscape. Something like that. For, are we talking open source or what, what are you? Yeah. Primarily open source. Yeah, just know what. For example, like, I'm reading like open run versus all run, right? I say the same organization or the difference. So. Are you going to say something. So there is a relationship. I say, I get confused with some of these on the difference on talking to the alliance. And then what are the projects. Within. The software. Well. They refer to open run. On this. And then you see the over and also, but if you go look at open run. You have the over and alliance tied in with. What they're doing over here within the tip. It's interesting if you see the. The picture down here. It's also a part of this. That's right. Yeah. Yeah, that's this is very confusing. So it's more of a personal interest rather than, you know, any, any project. It's just. Very confusing. Yeah, I don't feel like I can say specifically, but my take on it is. The. This whole, so the telecom and for projects. So. In some ways seems to be more. It reminds me more of like an I triple a type of group or something that's coming together and. Pushing for. The technical side in some ways. So testing and everything else. And the. Just the concept of having all of this is of interest. And then the Iran. This is. I don't want to use the word alliance. So this is a group of companies that are coming together that are saying, we're going to build out and agree on a specification for Iran. So they're doing something. That. I don't know if you have any, if you're there, I'm not seeing your mic open, but saying the difference between this. Iran. Is the Iran project actually has. They have specifications. That people are. I don't know if you have any, if you're there, I'm not seeing your mic open, but saying the difference between this. Iran. I don't know if you have any, I don't know if you have any, I don't know if you have any. That people are. Implementing. And so you have projects that are actually implementing what you see in here. And. And then doing testing to validate that they weren't together. I won't say that you don't see that over in tip. You definitely see like working projects, but. It kind of feels like a broader scope. So you're saying the. Telecom inferred. Project that's, that's more of the. It's rare fragmented industry, but. That tip is relatively. Can be called a kind of standard body at this point. Yeah, you mentioned, I think, oh, and ask. So, oh, and ask. I would think of them as a broader foundation. And tip is a larger. Large, large foundation. And if you're looking at. I don't want to say LF because you have stuff that's non telecom and LF. But like LFN or one of the others. So these. That type of foundation level, but over in alliance isn't trying to take on. You know, I wouldn't even say all things. I, I think it's not just telecom. It's. Seems to be. Very focused on. The ran side of things. So you have a lot of other telecom software and a lot of it. They're not building a cloud. In Iran. But I could see. I don't, I'm not. Going to go through all the projects, but. You. Yeah. Okay. So like just. open automation. Those are things in my mind that are well beyond the scope of ORAN. ORAN Alliance is a smaller scope than what the tip would be taking on. Magma is not, so ORAN Alliance, you could come up with a lot of different software that's compatible with ORAN at the specification. Magma is an implementation, so this is one step more detailed. So magma is more of an actual ready-to-use implementation? Yeah, it would be a ready-to-use implementation. So then, let's see. SRS or ORAN, and then let's see if I can find the open 5GS. This would be between these two. SRS or ORAN and open 5GS. You would have an implementation that you could use for building out. This would be comparable to, say, well, magma is primarily for the SRS or ORAN plus open 5GS would be the radio side and the core pieces. Really, there's not a single, sounds like there's not a single open RAM, per se. It's really fragmented. Well, I wouldn't say it's fragmented. So ORAN is, they're trying to build a standard that other people can follow. And then, so if you go, there's vendors that are building multiple pieces and some that are building singles. So you may have one component for on the RAM side or maybe a component for the core, but it's following the specifications for ORAN. So then maybe you don't use SRS RAM project for the radio, but you happen to use, let's say, open 5GS, which is compatible with ORAN spec, but you buy a, you go to some vendor that says they're ORAN compatible, and you can use that. So ORAN is trying to have an open standard that anyone can follow. And then a service provider can come in. And if they, if they say, we want to use an ORAN, we want to build an ORAN compatible network, then they can pick vendors who are ORAN compatible. And the ideas, they would know that they're going to work together. Okay. So relatively, ORAN is the standard body relatively compared to the other project. Specifically for the RAM side. They're the standard body for the RAM side. Just for the RAM, ORAN is the organization that try to make it more standard. Yeah. So they're not, they're not talking about, like, the protocols between all of the components for any, every part of the network. So you still see like 3GPP standards in use. MAGMA is not using 3GPP for all communication. Let's see if they have a, I don't see a diagram here. So when you look at the MAGMA core, and there are some of the pieces that instead of using 3GPP, they're using GRPC or some, and some protocol for communicating between the components. And then they'll use where they need to communicate with the RAM, you'll see a compatible 3GPP connection. But then the internal connections won't be using that. But you may find someone else that's building a core non MAGMA and those internal components are using 3GPP or maybe they're doing something completely different. So my point was ORAN isn't trying to be the standard body for all communication between all software. They're specifically talking about the RAM side. Okay. Okay. Thank you. At least that's clear now. ORAN is sort of the, at least for RAM, that's the standard effort for now at least. Yeah. I mean, there are other efforts and there's vendors that have, you can go by a RAM solution right now that's not a RAM compatible or a lot of it. So this is an effort. It's not that everyone has said, we're going to do it, drop everything else. But it is an effort to do that. And you do see a lot of companies that are either saying or already building software that is ORAN compatible. But it doesn't mean even those companies may have non ORAN compatible versions. So so just actually a follow up question is, because I worked for telecom before I know there is a roaming issue when network are not compatible, right? So is it true that if I did two network, if they all follow ORAN standard and it's possible to do network roaming, whereas if it's not compatible then it's not possible. Is that correct? And you're talking about, okay, so you have devices that are roaming between the networks and then are they going to be compatible if one provider is ORAN using ORAN and another is not? Correct. So it may have some influence, but now we're, and Nikolai, I see you on if you have thoughts, please jump in. So the device that's connecting, there's standards for the device. So similar to their standards for the components within the core, and then the core talking to other networks and everything. So now you're talking to the device talking to the towers. Well, there's standards for that too. So this ORAN is focused on how do we build the components to build when we're building, when you're going to deploy these new locations, how are they going to, how are the components coming together and then how do they talk with the core? When you're looking at the devices and you're saying it's 5G or 4G or whatever else, well that's its own protocol. So you're not, you're not likely to see someone saying they're 5G and they're going to be selling a radio software and hardware solution that's going to be incompatible with other 5G. I don't, I don't think that's going to be the case. I think you're probably going to see compatibility at that level for devices connecting, whether it's using a ORAN or anything else. Nikolai? Hey, Taylor here, everyone. So I just posted a link in the chat. Can you just open it? It shows the ORAN architecture. I don't know if this was already shared. So this is essentially, now the whole point is that, for example, the OENB, OCUCP, OCUP, all these components, they can be implemented as how to say containerized functions, virtual functions, or even physical boxes. So the point is that the interface is standardized here. And there are different splits. If you go deep into that, there are splits where they say, for example, the CUUP lives, I don't know, in the, in the cloud somewhere, where the DU lives in the closer to the, you know, B and things like that. I mean, there are many, many details here that can be looked in. It's a matter of going, reading the specs, but it's all about implementing the interfaces and then the way that the functions are implemented is essentially not, not important. What's important here is the split of the function. So the, the RIC, then CU, split, the DU, and ARU, of course, is probably mostly a hardware thing. Or ARU. I don't know if it can even be containerized, like softwareized at all. For the DU, I have seen a box of sorts, which was supposed to run like a container or something, but this was not really, not really flexible. The CU split. Where's the UAE? I'm trying to look. I don't see the UAE at all. Yeah, I mean, it's, it lives somewhere connected to the radio, right? Right. It's, yeah, but, but it's, it's not part of the overall spec. That's, that's what, yeah. So that's what we were getting at. And what I think Victor's asking, like, where's the UAE and can I move? If, if someone is implementing all this, what O-RAN is specifying, are they going to be able to then talk with someone with non, a non-O-RAN tower? And I, my, I, I see no reason. The radio is a totally, it's, it's not showing on here, but that's a, that would be another line and that's its own standard. And everybody, well, I'll say that, but they're, they're five to be standards. Oh, because you see at the bottom, at the bottom, it says open FH, that should be front hole or something. So I guess that the RU should be the antenna, you know, thing, the O-RU. But the point is that this whole thing, if you see on, on, on the right, it, it, it essentially, it outputs or inputs, if you go 3GPP interfaces. So all, so the whole, the whole this architecture is actually pluggable to a pre-existing 3GPP, you know, core. Which means the, the pluggable part will work with a non-O-RAN is for the, Yeah, but, but, but, but O-RAN doesn't, doesn't define anything about that. They just say, okay, I mean, our, and this is standard like the CU, right? It's, it's standard, right? I mean, it just talks to the, to the 5G core and so on, right? Right. And I guess what to, to take it the other way is that, well, that's talking to the 5G core. So they, you could build a CU that doesn't use 3GPP standards and uses some other communication method to talk to a core that doesn't, is not compatible with 3GPP. So it's mentioning MAGMA for some of it. Yeah. Doesn't, so you theoretically could have the CU actually do that, but, and then likewise, you could build the radio part where you go, we built our own special radio, or I don't know, maybe the, maybe you go, someone came out with a alpha version of 6G that's not, it's not official and, and they built a, a, the radio portion in their O-RAN, but that has nothing to do with O-RAN. So Victor, the main thing is the, the radio connectivity to your device, O-RAN doesn't specify anything. So that's up to the person implementing to decide what standard. And at this point, they're all trying to do, if we say 5G, then they're trying to, to have all of the different options and there are multiple options. It's actually harder on the phone side. So you're, you're picking out what phones and stuff actually support all of the different bands for 5G, then you're good, but that's not O-RAN. And likewise, what Victor, what Victor, I mean, Nikolai, sorry, what Nikolai's saying, Victor, was your O-RAN talking to the core. It also doesn't specify anything there. So it's, sounds like that the device roaming is more actually related to the radio tower itself rather than the, the O-RAN is still the infrastructure after the tower. But no, no, the radio, so it's the internal, I would say it's the internal components of the tower. So then you say the tower has an interface to talk to your, your device. And then there's a interface to talk to the core. And O-RAN cares about what's, it's trying to say you can break down the different pieces of the, the, the rate, the actual tower radio, the software and everything. But the, you're roaming when you're thinking roaming the device talking. So the first part is can I talk, can I, do I speak the same protocol and everything? Well, that's not O-RAN. But there are, there's standards already for that, but outside of O-RAN. And then does your tower talk with the 5G core? Well, there's also standards for that. And O-RAN doesn't care about that. Okay. So if, if you care about those, so it's really what do you care about? So if, if you're looking at, I want to build a, a tower and I will, I'm interested in breaking down the components or whatever. Well, O-RAN has, here's a specification and they're trying to say we can follow this and you can use different components or you'll be compatible with other ones. Is there a good website or blog that talk about what you just mentioned? Which part? Just like the, the device talk to the radio. That's one component. And O-RAN basically is the main component for the RAM, but it's not related to how the tower talk to the device. Then there's another component that talk to the core. That's not O-RAN. And yeah, just all those different components that how to make the, the, the, the, the, the, the whole telecom infrastructure. I don't, I don't have a website that has all that. Go ahead, Neflay. Yeah. I just, just wanted to add that the purpose of the O-RAN is mainly to kind of allow for innovation on one side here, like by, by just dividing the components into like the, the, dividing the old school G-Node B into subcomponents that, that are kind of standardized interface-wise. So for example, if I can give an example for my previous company Juniper, we were implementing the near real-time rig and non-real-time rig. And as long as these rig implementations were implementing key to A1, O1, O2, I don't think that we were implementing, these were applicable to run with all, with, with several other, we were verifying with several other vendors implementations of the CU, DU, and so on. If you see what I mean. So this essentially allows for different vendors to implement different components and essentially to build more interesting solutions here. I'm not sure if I'm a straight answering question here, but it's more. Yeah. I think I have enough information to go back and read and come back from more questions. I appreciate it so far. Thanks. Also, it's not necessary that all of this is running in the tower. Some of these are running on the edge, like some kind of edge data center, which allows for some, so essentially probably the data path sensitive, so the DU part and the area there kind of sitting on the tower or close there. Actually, now that you bring up another interesting concept edge, or so traditionally like several years ago when I heard edge, usually it means far edge, near edge and on premise, right, those kind of edge concept. But the, I think the 2020 Linux Networking Foundation white paper basically give a different definition, right? So basically the idea is use public child probably as a center and then you're like a user edge and service provider edge and they're in there, they're also subcategories. So yeah, so the definition of there's also other possibilities, as you said, it could be even very remote area for satellites. It could be area was really remote, so even deep in the ground, right? So what is the, is there any universal definition of what is the categories of edge? I guess the simplest thing, at least in my mind would be everything that's out of the standard data center, right? And depending how far it is from the data center or how close it is to user, then you can divide it on whatever like that. I don't know, back in the day, there was the last mile and all this. Is it by application or type of use basis or by the product you Parker used? What's a standard to categorize? Yeah, standard. Like I mean, from what and you enumerated, I think that, I mean, there were clearly two things. One is the type of the workload because you were talking about service provider edge or user edge. And then the other thing is, you know, the distance from the user or from the data center like near file and so on and so forth. So kind of it seems like there are two main, I'll say, distinguisher. Yeah. So I would say, yeah, for me, it's more, it's confusing, it's intriguing, but at the same time, make it interesting to try it out what it is. But definitely, I had a lot of good information. So thank you all for the good information. I'll go back and read more. I think it causes confusion to just say 5G, 5G core compared to Evolve packet core, which included the, well, I mean, I guess it was the Evolve packet core. The Evolve packet system, that's what I was thinking. And Nicolai. Oh, I remember this slide. Yeah, you remember that? So, yeah. Was it 4G Tink? Yeah, it is 4G Tink, like. Yeah, yeah, this. So I can't find something that's equivalent on the encompasses all of it that would make it. So when Victor's talking about this saying what, where, you know, what is all of it from the 4G side, then I think the Evolve packet system. And then you can go, oh, we want to talk about Enode B. So that's when we're saying, what is O-RAN? Well, it's only talking about this part, Victor, right here. Enode B. And breaking down this part into components and making this compatible. And then when you're talking magma, then you're saying it's equivalent, it's talking about components over here. What is this? Well, this is the packet core. Okay, so there's still tons of other pieces. If you want to go and say, well, I'm interested in voiceover Wi-Fi, well, that's this whole thing, this packet data gateway that talks to your packet core, but you don't have to even think about the packet core if you go, well, we're going to use whatever the standard interface to talk to the core. Okay, great. Well, now you're just talking about how does your, how do you deal with your device and Wi-Fi and then talking to some gateway. And there can be different solutions. But my point, Nikolai, is what do you call the new system, this evolved packet system? When you say 5G core, does that really encompass everything? Because to me, it seems like I keep seeing other pieces that come up. Or when someone says 5G core, they actually meant, oh, you're just talking about the core, not, you didn't mean the ran. Yeah, because essentially there is 5G core and 5G core standalone. Yeah. Yeah, because the standalone essentially means that you also employ the new radio, right? Because, yeah, they were having the mode where you can actually, you can hear 5G, but only on the radio part. Then the core was 4G or something. And then, yeah, because I think that this was the first wave, you know, this was the easier, like, approachable, just, you know, change the radio, like the antennas and stuff. And then, because the core is more, more, more, more, more, more involving to change. And then essentially the standalone means, okay, it's, it's only 5G the whole, the whole system. I don't, I don't know what the exact name would be. Because, yeah, this was the EPC, right? Back in the Evolve packet core, but the, you would, I think it's just 5GSA would be probably, I guess. So, you're thinking 5G standalone. I mean, it's confusing because I see standalone and then they'll say, and it's, we also have a compatibility for your 4G connections. And, and then it makes it confusing again. We have everything that will work for just 5G, the 5G core, 5G tower, but we have, you know, we have the connectivity for 4G to connect into this 5G standalone. It makes it confusing. I will agree here. So, Victor, I'll, I'll, I'll just go back and say it this way. Even if you come and find the name and probably go look at 5G standalone and go look at non, non 5G standalone or non 5GSA versus 5GSA or standalone. And you look at the architecture on that, and then you're just going to have to dig in. So, if you go see what Cisco and Nokia and any of the big ones, they're going to talk about everything. They're going to talk about the, the, and I'm showing 4G, but it will be similar thing. So, you have all the components on the core for 5G, and then you're going to have all sorts of pieces that connect into it. And then you're going to have the tower. So, on the standalone, you can, you can focus in on the 5G courses. And then the non standalone, you'll probably end up saying, here's, here's a component that allows us to communicate with 4G networks and that bridges between a 4G network. And then, of course, you can expand out still with like the voice over Wi-Fi and stuff like that. And from what I've seen, a lot of the components like this MME and all the session management, I mean, it may be changing more now, but a lot of them seem to have compatibility, but still between 4G and 5G for those, I'm going to bring up whatever you drop. Yeah, I believe this is a good overview. I'll strap that in here too. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I should have dropped it there. It's fine. I'll go back. All right, go ahead. I think that this is a good overview of the, and as you see, they call it 5G system. It's like 5G. All right, that's 5G system. Okay. And this is 3G PPS all day. Oh, so in that case, if Magma is a happy port, does it need a RAM component to work, or it has its own RAM component? I didn't understand that. Can you say it again? Does Magma need, like you work together with OpenRAM, or it has its own RAM component? My impression is that Magma is somehow challenging the 3GPP and saying, okay, we know better, but I might be wrong here. Well, they're saying it only on one part. I'm just trying to find like a, I'll have to pop this and see if I can. There's only, well, actually, I think that the slide that we made helps. So I'll go look and see if I can find a Magma, but this is actually higher level. You can break these down and there's a lot of connections, more components as you break each of these down, but this at least helps. So here you have a tower and it's talking to this SGW. Service gateway. Right. And then this is actually talking, you know, to this packet gateway. It goes all the way through to the MME. So this is going to get information about the actual user. The control path there, right, and the user path is going. This connection right here, this dotted connection and this dotted connection. This is where Magma is making some differences. Talking to the Enode B, Magma uses the same 3GPP standard. So Magma can talk to a tower that's using the, if it's following 3GPP for connectivity, it will be able to talk to Magma. Magma is not doing, they don't have a radio access network software. They're doing these components. What do we call these? These are the, this is, well, the evolved packet system is the whole thing, right? And then we're talking the evolved packet core. So this one helps too, maybe Victor. So Magma is interested in the evolved packet core. And I'm talking 4G here. So anything that's trying to do 5G would be similar, just 5G core. So you have the entire thing, evolved packet system, all the different pieces. And then Magma says we're writing software for this evolved packet core. The control plane, user plane, I think our next, yeah, digging in here. So now we break this down. Some of it, they use 3GPP standard for talking between the components and some of them they use some other paper, some other paper, some other standard operator. I'm trying to look where does it show? None of that helps me. But it's some part of the core pieces here. They used to have a good diagram, but this doesn't really help. Oh, actually, that is one part. They have this Federation gateway using GRPC with this orchestrator. That's fine. And so that's a little bit different. But I know that at least some of the core pieces also use GRPC. But it is compatible with your radio. I have no idea what type of compatibility Magma has with 5G. Do you know, Nikolai? I mean, I see it here, actually, non standalone and 5G standalone. All right. Okay. So it looks like third and this is important if you actually get in it. These N1, N2, N3. If you actually start doing the testing and looking at phones and stuff that are compatible. All right. So just looking at this, Victor, if Magma has a working 3GP compliant 5G, then they should be able to work with something like I was showing like SRS ran. So if you run, if you, this is an up source project. So if you get this up and running and have Magma up and running, then you should be able to have them speak together. But that has nothing to do with O-RAN that has to do with this 3GP compatibility. But if you want to look at the entire architecture, then we posted the link into the Google Docs here. So probably just talk starting with the, this 5G system overview. I mean, this is so simplified. Look at that Nikolai. Here it is. But I guess that's all right. So you have a device and it's talking to this NRUU. So we're talking, this is 3GPPP. So this is a standard. That's the roaming that you were caring about. O-RAN cares about this part right here, this GNB. And it's talking about how do we create this? How do we break down the components here? And then here's this F5GC. This is the core. So again, if you talk where it has this NG, if you use the protocol that 3GPPP is using, then however your core is designed internally, it can talk to any tower that speaks that. So whether you have an O-RAN compatible core or not, if it uses 3GPPP, it can talk to this. So then really what, you can go and look and just dig into all the different pieces. And then at some point you have to decide where am I wanting to focus. And that's where it ties in with. I want to dig into one area. This is digging more. It's showing the different components in each of the parts. The RAN is just one. Here's your device again. But you can, this is going to tie into a bunch of other pieces. And you can go into each one of these in depth. So again, MAGMA is going to go in in depth more on the 5GC or the Evolve package or EBC, since it had compatibility there. O-RAN has a lot of documentation. It's going to care more about the the GNAB or the RAN side. SRS RAN, there's a whole lot of documentation that'll break that down. So if you care about that, then you can go jump into documentation for one of those projects. But if you go read this one right here, you can go look at Cisco, you can go look at Nokia, and there's a lot of documentation out there from vendors that have talked about it and they'll take something like this, the stack, and they'll dig into each one of the components on the stack. I think this is another good one. All right, talk to the hour. Thanks for all the great questions, Victor. Thank you. Thank you for the information. Yeah. Thanks, everyone. Have a good day.