Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.21] 802.21 Information Elements



Hi Eric,

Are MNC+MCC numbers used by Wi-Fi hotspot operators as well?  

Yoshihiro Ohba

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 06:01:52PM +0200, NJEDJOU Eric RD-RESA-REN wrote:
> The ITU-T number i am talking about is that of E212 recommendation (MNC+MCC). The MNC+MCC association is called a PLMN in 3GPP systems. That code could be extended to address the uniqueness of operator identifier
> Eric
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : NJEDJOU Eric RD-RESA-REN 
> > Envoy¸«± : vendredi 28 octobre 2005 17:41
> > ¸Ŗ¢ : 'Gupta, Vivek G'; Yoshihiro Ohba
> > Cc : STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > Objet : 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>