Marco, Thanks for explaining your rationale, this helps clarify my thinking. As you noticed, my bias was leading me to a certain interpretation of the meaning of the proposed fields. I suspect that there will be use cases of interest where, as you mentioned in your next to last paragraph, clients of carrier 1 need to connect to an agent of carrier 2. In any event, I am interested in continued discussion on this topic.
Best regards, Larry From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:34 AM To: Laporte, Laurent [CTO]; [email protected] Subject: RE: FPC carrier ID and network ID question Hi Larry, thanks for your feedback and valid doubts, as you pointed out an important point to discuss. First of all, the space for a certain field in the ID can be increased. We may have a preceding discussion about how the identifier format should look like; as proposed in this version of the draft or differently. The rationale behind the Client-ID, Agent-ID and DPN-ID to allow unambiguous identification of a function instance associated with FPC and its location. 'Location' means to identify the network, e.g. a certain datacenter, where a function is instantiated and operational. Example: An IP switch, which can serve as Data Plane Node for mobility management, is located in a local POP/datacenter. The datacenter can be identified in the Network ID field of the complete identifier and should be unique within the carrier's network topology. In the example you brought, the Network Code (MNC) identifies rather the carrier instead of a certain spot of a single carrier's network topology. In terms of FPC deployment, we may omit the Carrier-ID field in identifiers in case we do not expose and use these identifiers outside of a single carrier. But it may be useful to identify the carrier as well in case, for example, a Client of carrier 1 connects to an Agent of Carrier 2. In case we need to keep a Carrier-ID field, it may comprise the complete tuple of MCC/MNC as you refer to. I hope that clarifies your question and we can follow up on that thread to find a suitable format for the complete identifier. Thanks, Marco From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Laporte, Laurent [CTO] Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 18:33 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [DMM] FPC carrier ID and network ID question Hello, I have a question regarding the Carrier ID and Network ID elements proposed in the DMM FPC protocol. I am trying to a) understand the meaning intended for Carrier and Network; and, b) reconcile these names with what is familiar to me as someone who works for a mobile service provider. The problem that I'm basically running into is that there are only 8 bits assigned each for Carrier ID and Network ID. I am accustomed to utilizing a PLMN, which is composed of an MCC and MNC, each having allowed values up to 999. With only eight bits, there are fewer values than required for either MCC or MNC. Eight bits for Carrier ID and Network ID seems to be quite constrained to me. I suspect that something else is meant, but I cannot readily surmise what it might be. Thanks, Larry Laporte ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
