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

Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)

Title: Message
I would tend to agree. The mere identification that there is a roaming agreement--that is to say the identification of a Visited CSN (with appropriate AAA) with a roaming agreement to a Mobile Subscriber's Home CSN--is available may very well be adequate.
 
As for identification of Visited CSNs that have a roaming agreement with a given Home CSN, the list may be presented over-the-air or in a configuration file in the MS, with periodic update. For some networks, over-the-air does not present too much of a problem, when the list is small. For other networks, the list of roaming CSN IDs could be huge making over-the-air impractical, so configuration files that receive periodic update are used.
 
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)

Dear all,
    I would add a word of caution to this, as within IEEE 802.11u we have assumed that in the future
there should be no reliance on the association between the SSID and the access service provider,
even though it is used in this fashion at the moment.  The SSID should only be considered as a hint
and does not always indicate who or what you are connecting to.
 
Currently there are contractual agreements between operators (which can vary based on who they
are - there is no standardised format as far as I know.) From an 802.21 perspective, the roaming
agreement itself is not important to the mobile terminal. It's the fact that one exists that is important.
 
Hence I think that 802.21 should not worry too much about how roaming agreements are expressed.
 
Kind regards
 
Stephen
 
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek G
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:11 PM
To: Phillip Barber; ajayrajkumar@lucent.com; Junghoon Jee
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)

 

Seems like we may need two operator identifiers to cover the general case.

How are roaming agreements expressed? Are they relevant to only Core Service Providers or to Access Service Providers as well?

Is this information useful to a MS from a handover decision making perspective…and are operators generally amenable to making this available?

 

Best Regards

-Vivek

 

 

From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Barber
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:25 PM
To: ajayrajkumar@lucent.com; Junghoon Jee
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)

 

I would say:

 

Access Service Provider - characterized by providing L1&L2 level access and may include some authentication (device authentication; L1&L2 and some L3&L4 capabilities negotiation; L1&L2 authentication). Access Service Network ID is usually analogous to Operator ID in 802.16 or infrastructure based SSID in 802.11. It tells you who you are connecting to, but not necessarily who is authenticating your use.

 

Core Service Provider- characterized by providing L3&L4 level access and almost certainly includes AAA authentication (perhaps device authentication; certainly user/account authentication; some L3&L4 capabilities negotiation). Calling this 'Mobility Service Provider' is really a misnomer. Calling it the Mobility Service Provider is a legacy distinction based on regulatory and marketing, not technical functional. On a technical level, if PMIP, then yes, HA will be in the Core Service Network. But the FA is in the Access Service Network and all actual mobility activity occurs in the ASN, not the CSN. And of course the CSN may very well be a visited CSN, perhaps even likely. Only rationale for calling the CSN the Mobility Service Provider is that the Mobile Station acquires its IP address from the CSN, if PMIP. If no PMIP (CMIP anyone?), it is even clearer. Anyway, mobility occurs in the Access Service Network, not the Core Service Network. Better to make the distinction based on who validates capabilities and authenticates. All should be viewed from the perspective/perception of the Mobile Station. CSN ID is more analogous to ITU E.212 MCC + MNC. MCC + MNC is not great, but it may be regulated anyway. May be required to be transmitted to meet regulatory requirements. Definitely should stay away from using NAI over the air. NAI can be huge; very expensive over the air. And ASN ID and CSN ID could very well be the same for many networks, especially 802.11 and 802.16 fixed/nomadic networks.

My two cents.

 

Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:10 PM

Subject: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)

 

Junghoon Jee wrote:

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.

[Ajay] I guess you are treating the "core network operator" as the "core transport operator", whereas, I was in fact treating "core operator" as the "home operator" including owning 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