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)



Phillip Barber wrote:
> 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.
I would also agree. But why does MS need to know the Visited AAA? Corner 
case: where L1/L2 and L3/L4 operators are different in a visited network
(assuming Home Network has roaming agreement with both of them), which 
operator's information should be exposed? Anyone or both of them?
> 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 -----
>
>     *From:* McCann, Stephen <mailto:stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK>
>     *To:* Gupta, Vivek G <mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM> ; Phillip
>     Barber <mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM> ;
>     ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM <mailto:ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM> ;
>     Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
>     *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>     <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>     *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 -----
>
>             *From:* Ajay Rajkumar <mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com>
>
>             *To:* Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
>
>             *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>             <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>
>             *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
>