Hi Jaakoo:
Please see Section 7.1.1 - Network Address - "Each H.323 entity will have at
least one Network Address. ..."
That is, an H.323 entity in a network will have its network address. (In
otherwords, an H.323 in a "Network" does NOT mean anything unless it is
associated with a "network address")
H.323 has also defined zone and domain. So, we can also define
home/visiting/visited/target zone/domain.
For example, an IP network may have many zones and domains as well.
(or, it may so happen a zone may also consist of both IP and ATM network.
Similarly, a domain may also contain both IP and ATM network. Each IP or ATM
network may have addresses. Each H.323 entity will have at least one network
address [e.g., IP or ATM])
The main idea behind the "home/visiting/visited/target network" means an
H.323 entity has a "home/visiting/visited/target network address."
I hope that this clarifies the definitions in the context of H.323.
Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 9:49 AM
> To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
>
> Hi Radhika et al,
>
> I'm quite well aware that H.323 (as any communication protocol) is
> described
> in the context of a network. In the case of H.323 all communications take
> place on a packet based network.
> From H.323 Chapter 3: "3.34 packet based network (also network): Any
> shared, switched, or point-to-point medium which provides peer-to-peer
> communications between two or more endpoints using a packet based
> transport
> protocol."
>
> In other words H.323 defines "network" as the underlying means for
> transporting H.323 protocols. I have nothing against that definition, but
> inherent in this definition is the notion that this network does not have
> any clear boundaries. I.e. all H.323 zones and domains that can
> communicate
> with each other belong to the SAME network based on this definition.
>
> Now, if we want to use the terms home/visited network, the question is:
> What is the home network of a user? In other words what are the boundaries
> in terms of network addresses, etc. of the part of the underlying network
> (e.g. the Internet) that is defined as being the home network of the user.
> Once we have defined the home network, we can, of course, easily define
> all
> the other parts of the underlying network as visited network(s).
>
> I have understood that most of the ad hoc group members have used the term
> home network as a synonym for Home Administrative Domain (similarly for
> the
> visited network/Domain). However, I understand that at least you, Radhika,
> have a quite different view on this. My understanding is that according to
> you there could be several "networks" even inside a zone, with perhaps one
> of them being a user's home network (and the others visited networks for
> the
> user). These two views are in contradiction to each other and that is why
> I
> did not want to use these terms at least before they are clerly defined.
>
> I'll also remind you that in the definitions of Annex H, the terms
> Home/Visited/Serving Administrative Domain are already defined and thus no
> ambiguity should arise when using them.
>
> I hope this clarifies my worries.
>
> -Jaakko
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EXT Roy, Radhika R, ALARC [mailto:rrroy@att.com]
> > Sent: 13. April 2000 16:06
> > To: Jaakko Sundquist; ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > Subject: RE: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
> >
> >
> > Hi, Jaakko:
> >
> > I am just pointing out to your one of your comments only: "..what a
> > "network" means..."
> >
> > The term "NETWORK/NETWORK ADDRESS" is well defined in H.323.
> >
> > Please see Rec. H.323. The entire Rec. has been described in
> > the context of
> > the network. More specifically, Sections 3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.1.1, and many
> > others. In this context, please also "Section 7.1.1 - Network
> > Address ."
> >
> > In fact a network can be any packet network: IP, ATM, etc.
> > More importantly,
> > H.323 is for "Packet-Based Networks (PBN)."
> >
> > Are you questioning the fundamental basis of H.323?
> >
> > Let us NOT create a debate that does not exit.
> >
> > In the same token, there can be home network address, visited network
> > address, target network address, etc.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Radhika R. Roy
> > AT&T
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaakko Sundquist [SMTP:jaakko.sundquist@nokia.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 8:20 AM
> > > To: ITU-SG16(a)MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> > > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > > I have a couple more questions.
> > >
> > > First, what exactly is the BG in your contribution? I know
> > that there is
> > > such an element in GPRS and it is used in cases, when the
> > visited PLMN
> > > always routes the packets of the visiting user to the
> > user's home PLMN. I
> > > assume that this BG is supposed to serve a similar purpose,
> > am I right?
> > >
> > > Second, based on the above mentioned purpose of the BGs and
> > to the fact
> > > that
> > > in your contribution you state that the HLF selects a
> > gatekeeper in the
> > > home
> > > network of the user to which the terminal/user will be registered, I
> > > assume
> > > that this model that you are proposing is only applicable
> > for the "Virtual
> > > Home Environment" model (i.e. service execution in the home
> > network). Am I
> > > right in this assumption, and if not, could you explain how
> > this model
> > > could
> > > be used in the "Service Execution in the Visited Network" model?
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I would not use the terms home/visited
> > network, because there
> > > are evidently differing views on what a network means. I
> > suggest that we
> > > use
> > > the already defined terms Home/Visited Administrative
> > Domain instead for
> > > the
> > > meaning of home/visited network that I think you're thinking of.
> > >
> > > -Jaakko
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: EXT Stephen Terrill [mailto:stephen.terrill@ERICSSON.COM]
> > > > Sent: 13. April 2000 14:42
> > > > To: ITU-SG16(a)mailbag.cps.intel.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I shall try to answer some of these questions below.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > ..//steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Kumar, Vineet" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Stephen,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a couple of questions on your contribution MTD-016.
> > > > These are:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. H.323 already has mechanisms for discovering the
> > > > gatekeeper. Are you suggesting in your contribution that the
> > > > terminal should discover the VLF instead of the visiting
> > > > gatekeeper ? Or, are you assuming that the VLF is integrated
> > > > in the visiting gatekeeper ?
> > > >
> > > > This can be discussed - I was of the opionion that we should
> > > > discover the VLF and send the registration to the home
> > > > environment after that. However, we haven´t agreed on the
> > > > role of the VLF, and visited gatekeeper, home gatekeerp and
> > > > HLF - when we come to agree on what these are, my
> > proposal may change.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. In H.323, authentication of the terminal and the
> > > > gatekeeper is done at the time of discovery. In fact, in
> > > > H.323 all messages between the terminal and the gatekeeper
> > > > can be authenticated and the message integrity preserved. In
> > > > your contribution, authentication is done at the time of
> > > > registration. Why is this preferable to what is already in H.323 ?
> > > >
> > > > I would be interested to understand which gatekeeper you were
> > > > considering should do the authentication. I would assume
> > > > that the real authentication would have to be done at home -
> > > > as such it would be necessary to find the visited network
> > > > services, and then register/authenticate at home.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. What is the reason for the information flow from the HLF
> > > > to the home gatekeeper, and from the home gatekeeperr to the
> > > > HLF ? I don't think we can assume that there is only one home
> > > > gatekeeper that the terminal may be using. In fact, the home
> > > > gatekeeper may not have any information about the user.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly don´t assume that there is only one home
> > > > gatekeeper. I assume that there will be a number of home
> > > > gatekeepers, but perhaps only one (or few) HLFs. In this
> > > > case, we need an function to select the gatekeeper that the
> > > > user is going to camp on - and this may depend on load,
> > > > subscriber profile, policy - or a lot of things.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > vineet
> > > >
> >
