Talk:Visitor Location Register

See Talk:Global System for Mobile Communications. -- Beland 11:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i also agree.....below statement is right... please edit accordingly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.0.222 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the GSM network?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article should be merged with GSM core network#Visitor Location Register (VLR). My reason for suggesting this is that the Home Location Register is part of the GSM core network article. --- calum 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why so restrictive? The GSM network is not the only type of mobile phone network. Other networks use HLRs and VLRs too... -Nulbyte 05:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VLR is not only a part of GSM networks, instead this is a database which is used by other network types too, like CDMA. So this part should not be moved inside GSM. VLR is used by number of network components, which mainly contents the information of mobile. Instead of contacting HLR, the most cost effective way is to contact VLR which reduces time delay, and other related cost of trunks used. Dinkar Sinha

As alrady stated, the VLR/HLR are generic functions used by all kinds of Mobile networks regardless of Radio Technology. Therefore it is better to link to this section from GSM Core Network rather than include it. Jonas E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.95.2 (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree that they should be merged as there is more context in the GSM core network article. Also, the article only describes the GSM version of the VLR anyway and does so quite poorly. I'm not certain that other mobile standards have a VLR although they may have similar conceptual databases with different names. CDMA is not a different standard - it is a radio access standard that also happens to be used in GSM. ChrisUK (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ChrisUK. → AA ^(talk) — 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query merger, expert advice sought There are three separate responses above (Nulbyte, Dinkar Sina, and an IP) stating that VLR has wider applicability than GSM, and therefore opposing the merger. That assertion is slightly supported by, for instance, this. If that assertion is correct, a merger would not be appropriate. And if it's incorrect, why isn't anyone disputing it here? But again, if it's correct, why doesn't the VLR article state this wider applicability? It seems we need an authoritative voice—someone who can produce some sources to answer these questions—before we consider a merger or an expansion of the VLR page. I've tagged the VLR page accordingly. PL290 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.