RE: [802.21] 802.21 Information Elements
Hi all,
> > - Network Operator
> >
> > As someone pointed out in today's teleconf. on 802.16 amendment, the
> > 802.16e network operator provided by BSID is valid within 802.16
> > networks. As far as I remember, a rough agreement during the
> > September meeting is that 802.21 Network Operator should
> use a global
> > unique identifier across all network types (but there was
> no agreement
> > which specific identifier is appropriate.) I personally think that
> > operator's domain name might be the only acceptable global unique
> > identifier used for representing network operator across all network
> > types. Note that if an UE needs to obtain an 802.16e
> network operator
> > information of a specific 802.16 BS from non-802.16
> network, it can be
> > obtained in the same way as PHY type and MAC type (media-specific
> > information is already defined in media-specific MIBs and can be
> > obtained via extended set access), so the 802.21 Network
> Operator does
> > not necessarily carry 802.16e network operator information.
> >
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> Yeah I agree. This was just an example for 802.16.
> If we agree on a global unique identifier, is this identifier already
> available for most operators or would it have to be constructed. Would
> be nice to use something that's already being widely used.
> Any other views on this....from operators/carriers?
>
I think the domain name might not be a pertinent "generic" operator
identifier. The reason is that in general telecommunications
environment, the operator identifier is meant to indicate the operator
as a Network Access Provider (NAP) rather than an Internet Service
Provider. The PLMN code, the BSID of 16 and the SSID of 11 all represent
the operator as a NAP.
This been said, i guess the question is: should we need a unique NAP
identifier? And the response seems to be YES we need one. However is
that within the IEEE 802 mandate to work this issue? Such work would
generally be handled by ITU-T because there are number assignment
consideration that are linked to countries.
Anyway if .21 can dedicate some thinking space to the matter, it will
not be a lost effort. Putting an operator hat, i would say that
operators would want their unique NAP identifier to be an extension of
the ITU-T number.
Eric