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

RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs



Doesn't the 48-bit MAC address also contain a component that is vendor
specific?  I might be wrong on that one.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Zion Hadad [mailto:zionh@runcom.co.il]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:41 AM
To: 'Zuniga, Juan'; 'Phil Guillemette'; stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs


Hi all
The operator will identify bad CPE manufacture in his network (reliability/
interoperability point of view) which will help him to ask for correction in
order maintain the network batter.
All the best.
Zion Hadad
Runcom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Zuniga, Juan
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 5:15 PM
To: Phil Guillemette; stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs


Hi Phil,

Two reasons for including a Manufacturer ID come to my mind: The first one
would
be to add "vendor specific features", as for example DOCSIS allows. The
second
one is for authentication, where the operator wants to make sure that only
"his"
SSs will be allowed to join the network (i.e. some operators may have
exclusivity over certain brand). In this case, the Manufacturer ID could be
included in the X.509 certificate and does not need to be sent as often as
the
Operator ID.

Cheers,

Juan-Carlos


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Guillemette [mailto:PGuillemette@spacebridge.com]
Sent: 22 March 2001 09:45
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs


Hi guys,

I remember the reasoning behing the inclusion of an operator ID within the
base station ID, but I can't recall why we needed a manufacturer id to be
transmitted.  The only reasons that I can think of for needing the
manufacturer ID would be for reasons taken care of by Network Management
which will be above the MAC.  Could someone please let me know why we had
decided the manufacturer id was required?

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: David Trinkwon [mailto:trinkwon@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 6:35 PM
To: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs


This could also be an issue for TG3 where multiple (competitive) operators
are using IEEE 802.16a systems in the same geographic area, using subsets of
a wider band addressable by the CPE (e.g. MDS, 3.5GHz and WCS bands with
different channels / blocks allocated to different service providers). I
thought that ITU already allocates Operator IDs and/or mobile wireless
bodies somewhere, but I don't know anything about it.

David Trinkwon
Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel : 650 245 5650    Fax : 650 649 2728
UK   Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315  Fax : +44 (0)20 7681 1695


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:14 PM
To: stds-802-16-mac@ieee.org
Subject: stds-802-16-mac: Operator IDs



During comment resolution last week, the TG1 MAC group was discussing
the possible need for an Operator ID. In the minutes:

	IEEE 802.16 TG1 MAC Meeting Minutes for Session #12
	<http://ieee802.org/16/tg1/docs/802161-01_08.pdf>

the discussion is summarized this way:

"The need to have an Operator ID, as well as a Manufacturer ID,
broadcast by the BS has been identified. The purpose would be to
avoid confusion when the SS tries registering to a wrong BS in a zone
boundary situation."

I can talk to IEEE Registration Authority about possible support for
this kind of thing. They already administer the 24-bit
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) used to identify network
equipment by vendor. They run some other registration programs too.

One thought is to have the operators obtain their own standard LAN
OUI. I'm guessing that this would be OK with IEEE, but you'd be stuck
with 24 bits. I think it's safe to say that this is a lot more than
we need.

Another approach is to ask IEEE to set up a separate registration
program for Operator IDs. I can ask them about this, but I'd like to
know some things:

(1) How many bits do we need?
(2) It sounds like this idea might be important to WirelessHUMAN. If
so, then we may have to revise the answer to (1).

Any ideas?

Roger