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
>