| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
In my view, "core network operator" loosely can be interpreted as the
"mobility service provider", i.e., the operator that owns the user.
Junghoon>> For clarification, the more accurate interpretation about the feature of the mobility service provider is its having a mobility management entity like HA in case of MIP.
However, if one has to look at the most general case of the entities
involved in providing a service to an end host they would be as follows:
- Access Service Provider
- Mobility Service Provider
- "Services" Provider
Junghoon>> Well, I am not so sure about the above categorization.
I am more inclined to the definition from the IETF draft that was indicated from the previous message. :-)
Each of the above typically has some level of Authentication/Authorization functionality and depending on the the
network some of these AA functionalities may be optional at an implementation/deployment level.
Also, these Authentication/Authorization functions could be delegated to an independent entity. However, in the current networks typically this
is not delegated. Bottomline, the most general case could involve six independent entities.
Considering that AA functionality may be integrated by the provider, three entities may still be involved.
Junghoon>> Back to the main issue of which operator information we would expose in IEs...
I am not still questioning to myself about the feasibility and effectiveness of exposing the _core_ operator's information to IEs.
How can a MIH Information Server gather the core operators' information depending on the varying mobile nodes and can pick up the right information for a specific mobile node? Do we have to depend on the seed information like NAI in case of AAA?
Moreover, what benefit can a mobile node expect by receiving the core operator's information in terms of seamless handover?
Any thoughts?
Best Regards,
-Junghoon