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
> >
> >
> >
>
>