Hello folks,
I think it's best to consider the MNID as simply living in a space of
identifiers, and not worry too much about whether it's a logical identifier
or a physical identifier. If the former, then somewhere (perhaps below
the network layer) the logical identifier has been bound to something
in the physical interface, but that's not our problem.
The number space for types of MNIDs is likely to stay pretty empty,
so I'd say we could add as many types as would be convenient for the
software designers. So, we could conceivably have several MNIDs
defined that all "looked like" NAIs (which, themselves, "look like"
FQDNs).
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 9/10/2014 8:11 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
Yes. Currently, the MNID is if the nai format and is overloaded. The MNID
in 3GPP specs is the IMSI-NAI (IMSI@REALM), its based on the IMSI. Ex:
"<IMSI>@epc.mnc<MNC>.mcc<MCC>.3gppnetwork.org²
We also have MAC48@REALM;
We also have approaches to transform MAC to Pseudo IMSI, and then carry
IMSI-NAI as the MN-ID.
So, we need unique sub-types for each of the types/sources.
MN-Id based on IMSI, MSISDN, IMEI, MAC ..
Also, do we need to distinguish between IMSI and IMSI-NAI ?
Sri
On 9/10/14 6:29 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems the MNID is somehow overloaded to carry both, node-specific IDs,
e.g. MAC, as well as subscriber IDs, which is the IMSI.
There may be value in adding the IMEI to the list of possible types of
node-specific IDs.
marco
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
(sgundave)
Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins; [email protected]
Cc: Vijay Devarapalli
Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..
Two more comments.
4.) I'd also use sub-type value of (2) for IMSI. Just to align with the
sub-types
defined for MN Id defined for ICMP. I suspect there are some
implementations
already using sub-type (2). Please see the other thread.
5.) For each of the sub-types, we need text including examples and some
explanation on how they are used.
Sri
On 9/9/14 2:20 PM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Charlie,
This is good. Thanks.
1.) If EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses are derived of a 48-bit IEEE 802.2
address, why do we need to two sub-types ? Why not have just one
sub-type for mac based identifiers ?
2.) Sub type value (1) is currently used. Its currently overloaded for
IMSI-NAI (3GPP specs) and generic NAI based identifiers. Given the
definition of new sub-types, we need some text explaining the
motivation
3.) Proposed Sub-type value of (2) for IPv6 address. What exactly is
this ? Are these CGA-based IPv6 addresses ?
New Mobile Node Identifier Types
+-----------------+------------------------+
| Identifier Type | Identifier Type Number |
+-----------------+------------------------+
| IPv6 Address | 2 |
| | |
| IMSI | 3 |
| | |
| P-TMSI | 4 |
| | |
| EUI-48 address | 5 |
| | |
| EUI-64 address | 6 |
| | |
| GUTI | 7 |
+-----------------+------------------------+
Regards
Sri
PS: Good to see Vijay back
On 9/9/14 1:28 PM, "Charlie Perkins" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello folks,
Here's the last Internet Draft that we did, long ago expired:
http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-perkins-mext-4283mnids-01.txt
I'll resubmit it with a few updates as a personal draft to dmm.
Regards,
Charlie P.
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
