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)



There is ongoing work in IETF RADEXT to standardize operator
identifier representation (draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-06.txt).  I
think it is not bad idea for 802.21 to utilize the work to improve
interoperability.

Yoshihiro Ohba

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 01:27:23PM -0500, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>