Re: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
Hi again Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. Actually I guessed that you intended to mean BEs instead of BGs, but I just wanted to make sure. As for the service paradigm, I guess the main thing is whether the gatekeeper to which a terminal/user is registered is located in the Home Administrative Domain or in the Visited Administrative Domain. I.e. is an incoming call always routed to a gatekeeper in the user's Home Administrative Domain so that the call processing logic can be executed always in the user's home environment? I seem to remember that Ericsson were quite keen to include this paradigm in the Annex H (that is what Chapter 7 of the draft annex should explain -> contributions are welcome ;-).
-Jaakko
-----Original Message----- From: EXT Stephen Terrill [mailto:stephen.terrill@ericsson.com] Sent: 13. April 2000 16:38 To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
Hi Jaakko,
Perhaps it should have been a BE instead of a BG, sorry for the confusion. I understood from the previous work, not all of which I have had the priveledge to be a part of, the communication could be directly between the two networks, or via the BEs.
Regarding the service execution paridigm what "services" are you considering?
Regards,
..//steve
Jaakko Sundquist wrote:
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@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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Hi Jaakko,
From what you have written, do I understand that you view that for a terminating call (incomming), the call won´t be routed via the home network - regardless of where the services are being executed.
..//steve
Jaakko Sundquist wrote:
Hi again Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. Actually I guessed that you intended to mean BEs instead of BGs, but I just wanted to make sure. As for the service paradigm, I guess the main thing is whether the gatekeeper to which a terminal/user is registered is located in the Home Administrative Domain or in the Visited Administrative Domain. I.e. is an incoming call always routed to a gatekeeper in the user's Home Administrative Domain so that the call processing logic can be executed always in the user's home environment? I seem to remember that Ericsson were quite keen to include this paradigm in the Annex H (that is what Chapter 7 of the draft annex should explain -> contributions are welcome ;-).
-Jaakko
-----Original Message----- From: EXT Stephen Terrill [mailto:stephen.terrill@ericsson.com] Sent: 13. April 2000 16:38 To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Subject: Re: [H.323 Mobility:] questions on MTD-016
Hi Jaakko,
Perhaps it should have been a BE instead of a BG, sorry for the confusion. I understood from the previous work, not all of which I have had the priveledge to be a part of, the communication could be directly between the two networks, or via the BEs.
Regarding the service execution paridigm what "services" are you considering?
Regards,
..//steve
Jaakko Sundquist wrote:
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@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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
participants (2)
-
Jaakko Sundquist -
Stephen Terrill