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

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
>>
>