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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>