Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
You could do it, but I would not expect interoperability. That is to say,
there would be no consistent presentation of information, so no Mobile
Station behavior could be standardized because information is not
reliably/consistently provided. If you don't care about interoperability you
could simply create a generic payload delivery method and let vendors stuff
whatever proprietary info into those payloads that they care to.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Qiaobing Xie" <Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM>
To: "Subir Das" <subir@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM>
Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in
IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
Why not simply define it as a 802.21 placeholder/container
"Owner/Operator Info" IE containing an unrestricted character string and
let the actual operators/owners/partners associations (like the current
GSMA) to decide whatever most suitable for their then business model to
put in there.
regards,
-Qiaobing
Subir Das wrote:
> 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
>>
>