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

Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)



Being a "Placeholder" means some secondary stds body (for example an 
cellular and non-cellular network owner/operator association that wants 
to build a cross-tech mega roaming/handover service network based on 
802.21 technology) will have to step in after the completion of 802.21 
spec and define and manage their own operator/owner namespace. 
Interoperability would thus be guaranteed within that association.

I don't see how 802.21 alone can accomplish network interoperability 
without the involvement of the actual owners/operators anyway.

regards,
-Qiaobing

Phillip Barber wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>