Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
Typically one or more CSN IDs are what is presented to the Mobile Station
via some type of beacon or broadcast advertisement message (along with a
method to present Access Network ID). This is the list of CSNs directly
servicing the identified Access Network. Then there may also be another list
of roaming partner CSN IDs that accompany the CSN ID list. Alternately,
should none of the CSN IDs presented to the Mobile Station be the Home CSN
of the MS, the MS might do a lookup in a table in some configuration
information stored on the MS to identify if any of the presented CSN IDs are
roaming partners to the Home CSN of the MS. The roaming partner CSN IDs may
very well include the Home CSN of the MS, while the original list of 'CSN
IDs' presented on the air interface may very will not include the Home CSN
of the MS.
The concept of 'Home' and 'Visited' CSN is particular to a given MS, varies
from MS-to-MS, and is not established until an MS identifies the set of CSN
IDs--both directly serving the identified Access Network and roaming partner
CSN IDs. That is to say that once an MS determines that its Home CSN is
included in the list of CSN IDs advertised as directly serving the
identified Acess Network, then the CSN ID is the Home CSN. It is in its
'Home' network. If the MS determines that none of the CSN IDs presented are
the Home CSN ID of the MS, the MS may determine that one or more of the CSN
IDs presented has a roaming relationship with the MS's Home CSN, then the
presented CSN ID is a Visited CSN. So it is all relative to the MS.
I hope this explanation is adequately confusing.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Subir Das" <subir@research.telcordia.com>
To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:54 AM
Subject: SPAM-LOW: 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
>