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
>>>
>>
>