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

RE: [802.21] 802.21 Information Elements



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 
> Envoyé : vendredi 28 octobre 2005 17:41
> À : '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 
> 
> 
>