Re: [802.21] 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)
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:51:15PM -0500, 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 is where semantic query provided by XML/RDF can be really useful.
MN just needs to ask "Is operator A a roaming partner of operator B?"
where A is access network operator advertised by the access network
and B is the operator to which the MN is subscribed. And the expected
response for the query is just "Yes" or "No".
Yoshihiro Ohba
>
> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>