Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: 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)
At some point overhead is going to be a very large concern, right about time
everyone switches off support for 802.21 because it is a hog.
Don't want to be alarmist, but at some point 802.21 should move this forward
on their agenda and begin dealing with it. 802.21 is in Working Group Letter
Ballot. Now is not necessarily a bad time to work on this matter.
And I am serious about not supporting 802.21 if it is a hog. Many air
interfaces, 802.16 included, spent huge effort reducing the management and
control overhead (to various degrees of arguable success) for the air
interface. They are not going to like having 802.21 coming in with a huge
overhead impact. Time to start thinking of how you are going to 'thin' this
model up.
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Qiaobing Xie" <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: 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)
Phillip Barber wrote:
> I agree with your observations.
>
> I see 802.21's job as a facilitator to help namespace/numberspace
> management reach a common understanding so interoperable, common behavior
> can result. But 802.21 does not have adequate mandate or authority to
> enforce such action on other SDOs.
>
> But I have to say, 253 byte string fields are wholly unacceptable for air
> interface broadcast events in any timely manner that would be useful. Bear
> in mind that broadcast events are invariably transmitted at the worst
> possible burst profile. It is a burden if you have to transmit a single
> 253 byte Operator ID code every minute or so. It is completely untenable
> if you have to transmit a list of twenty or a hundred of these every
> second, which can happen if the Access Network supports multiple CSNs,
> especially with the support of virtual CSNs. And lets not forget
> over-the-air transmission of the CSN IDs for roaming partners. So the size
> of the Operator ID that is viable is tied to the quantity of Operator IDs
> to be transmitted over-the-air and the frequency of broadcast of these
> values. Even as unicast transmissions to individual MS, made with more
> robust burst profiles, this could be pretty large blobs of data.
This observation applies to many other IEs as well. Right now the
compactness of information element representation is taking a back seat
in the discussion. The only two encoding options on the table are TLV
and XML - neither is meant for compactness.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip Barber
> Chief Scientist
> Broadband Wireless Solutions
> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
> <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
> To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
> Cc: <STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:40 PM
> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: 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)
>
>
> Phillip Barber wrote:
>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> The whole point of having a standardized media independent way of
>> conducting handover was to make it so that each of the technologies could
>> have a single model to write to, 802.21, instead of creating different
>> proprietary models of there own, each for different technologies. What
>> you propose then would be to have 3GPP2 write one method of identifying
>> networks and negotiating handover among various technologies, 3GPP
>> creating a different method, 802.16 creating another, 802.11 creating
>> another, etc.... And it does not sound to me like any of them would be
>> interoperable.
>
>
> The focus here is just the Operator Name field, what should be put there
> and what the value should mean. I don't think any one is talking about
> abandoning 802.21. From the previous discussion on this thread, the
> syntax and semantics of operator name clearly have a strong connection
> to the business model and agreement (who own which part of what). I just
> don't see how 802.21 by itself can impose anything there.
>
>> It sounds to me like you are endorsing having each industry segment
>> create its own methodology which, once again, create multiple
>> non-standardized methods for conducting handover. Please correct me if I
>> misunderstand.
>
>
> We create the technology that allows everyone to associate with everyone
> else. But whether that will happen is beyond 802.21. In this particular
> case, a container will work - if the entire community can agree to have
> a single association, then they simply define and manage a universal
> namespace and put the name in the container. If not, they define
> separate namespace and put the name in the container. Either way, the
> 802.21 container will work just fine.
>
>>
>> If all you wanted was some payload 'hooks' then none of 802.21 is really
>> necessary. You could have just gone to each of the technology specific
>> standards bodies and asked for the hooks. 802.21 only exists to create a
>> common, standardized method to use those hooks. 802.21 is glue language;
>> the common language that each of the other bodies writes to. So 802.21
>> has to create the common interface for that action. That means mapping
>> and presenting information elements like network identifiers in some
>> common manner so that other technologies, other implementations will have
>> a common understanding and can create MS and network behavioral models
>> that can achieve similar and consistent handover results.
>
>
> I did not intend to generalize the discussion. Let's only talk about the
> operator name here. When an "operator name" IE is sent from A to B,
> 802.21 takes the value from A and pass to B and makes sure that B will
> understand this blob of data is an "operator name" IE, but 802.21 will
> not say anything about whether the value is right/wrong, good/bad,
> legal/illegal, allowed/disallowed, etc. This because only the name
> authority can judge the value of the name field. I don't see 802.21 can
> or should play that role.
>
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
>
>>
>> Just my opinion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phillip Barber
>> Chief Scientist
>> Broadband Wireless Solutions
>> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
>> <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
>> To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
>> Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:27 PM
>> Subject: SPAM-LOW: 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>