RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
Hi Phil,
By "specific features" I mean features that are beyond the standard Basic
Capabilities, which do not need to be included in the standard but rather can be
proprietary to one specific manufacturer (i.e. SS and BS from the same brand).
The first 3 bytes of the MAC address of the SS identify its manufacturer, but we
still need a specific message to identify the manufacturer of the BS.
Best regards,
Juan Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Guillemette [mailto:PGuillemette@spacebridge.com]
Sent: 23 March 2001 08:52
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
Hi Juan Carlos,
I disagree with your first reason for including the manufacturer ID. Any
features, or SS capabilities will be available from the SBC messages at
initialisation. I don't think that it is a good idea to infer capabilities
based on manufacturer ID. In terms of restricting access, the 48 bit MAC
address can be used for that.
Regards,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Zuniga, Juan [mailto:jzuniga@harris.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:15 AM
To: Phil Guillemette; stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
Hi Phil,
Two reasons for including a Manufacturer ID come to my mind: The first one
would
be to add "vendor specific features", as for example DOCSIS allows. The
second
one is for authentication, where the operator wants to make sure that only
"his"
SSs will be allowed to join the network (i.e. some operators may have
exclusivity over certain brand). In this case, the Manufacturer ID could be
included in the X.509 certificate and does not need to be sent as often as
the
Operator ID.
Cheers,
Juan-Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Guillemette [mailto:PGuillemette@spacebridge.com]
Sent: 22 March 2001 09:45
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
Hi guys,
I remember the reasoning behing the inclusion of an operator ID within the
base station ID, but I can't recall why we needed a manufacturer id to be
transmitted. The only reasons that I can think of for needing the
manufacturer ID would be for reasons taken care of by Network Management
which will be above the MAC. Could someone please let me know why we had
decided the manufacturer id was required?
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: David Trinkwon [mailto:trinkwon@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 6:35 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
This could also be an issue for TG3 where multiple (competitive) operators
are using IEEE 802.16a systems in the same geographic area, using subsets of
a wider band addressable by the CPE (e.g. MDS, 3.5GHz and WCS bands with
different channels / blocks allocated to different service providers). I
thought that ITU already allocates Operator IDs and/or mobile wireless
bodies somewhere, but I don't know anything about it.
David Trinkwon
Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7681 1695
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:14 PM
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs
During comment resolution last week, the TG1 MAC group was discussing
the possible need for an Operator ID. In the minutes:
IEEE 802.16 TG1 MAC Meeting Minutes for Session #12
<http://ieee802.org/16/tg1/docs/802161-01_08.pdf>
the discussion is summarized this way:
"The need to have an Operator ID, as well as a Manufacturer ID,
broadcast by the BS has been identified. The purpose would be to
avoid confusion when the SS tries registering to a wrong BS in a zone
boundary situation."
I can talk to IEEE Registration Authority about possible support for
this kind of thing. They already administer the 24-bit
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) used to identify network
equipment by vendor. They run some other registration programs too.
One thought is to have the operators obtain their own standard LAN
OUI. I'm guessing that this would be OK with IEEE, but you'd be stuck
with 24 bits. I think it's safe to say that this is a lot more than
we need.
Another approach is to ask IEEE to set up a separate registration
program for Operator IDs. I can ask them about this, but I'd like to
know some things:
(1) How many bits do we need?
(2) It sounds like this idea might be important to WirelessHUMAN. If
so, then we may have to revise the answer to (1).
Any ideas?
Roger