Subject: RE: draft-wasserman-3gpp-advice-00.txt

From: "Soininen Jonne (NET/MtView)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:32:51 -0800

Hi Francis,

see my comments bellow:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Francis Dupont [mailto:[email-masked]]

[snip]

> 
> 
>    If so, how does this change anything?
>    
> => the point of connection to the Internet is not the GGSN, but is
> a Network Access Server of an ISP. As ISPs need network access control
> (AAA with a stress on the last A :-), the stupid already used solution
> is the ADSL one (ADSL has the same requirement for openness), 
> i.e. PPP.

Actually this case was thought already in the early stages of GPRS
standardization. The idea could be also that the GGSN would be connected
to a company intranet (directly), and the intranet would like to
authenticate the user instead of the subscription to the mobile network,
which is done by SIM authentication. Actually, it is possible to
authenticate the user with PPP even without using the PDP Type PPP. In
this case, there is a PPP connection between e.g. the laptop and the
mobile phone, but PPP does not go across the air interface. The needed
information for performing the authentication is transferred in the PDP
Context Activation messages in the protocol configuration options to the
GGSN. Then a protocol can be used to give the credentials to the network
authenticated to, e.g. Radius. I cannot remember from the top of my head
in which document this is, but I can look it up. However, I would not
see this as an issue to our document but to 3GPP. 3GPP has to see itself
if they are compliant with individual regulatory requirements. I would
not think this as a task of the IPv6 WG.

> 
>    In our perfect world, 3GPP nodes will be running Internet 
> applications
>    over IPv6.
> 
> => it doesn't matter: ISPs will choice how they provide 
> Internet services
> and if they really want to provide a good service (and keep 
> their customers)
> they should provide IPv6 with a transition mechanism for legacy IPv4.
>
>    Even if IPv4 connectivity is ultimately provided by an
>    existing ISP, the IPv6 traffic will need to be routed through the
>    GGSN and a transition mechanism (NAT-PT or 6-over-4) will 
> be required 
>    to send traffic over the IPv4 Internet.  The choice of transition 
>    mechanism should probably depend on whether the ultimate 
> destination
>    is an IPv4 node, or an IPv6 node (such as another 
> 3GPP-attached device).
>    
> => what you decribe is "vertical integration", i.e. the dream 
> of telephants.
> But they is a pressure to the other (correct) way from both customers
> (they won't understand to get less than ADSL for far more money) and
> regulation bodies. I can try to find the "WAP lock" story in English
> (an attempt to do vertical integration (aka rempant monopoly) with
> WAP, the result was large fines and a very small market).
> 
>    >the PDP type of choice should be PPP, just because
>    >PPP/Radius provides a good network access control. Note that
>    >this solves:
>    >  - the UE issue because PPP is a very well known protocol
>    >  - the network access control issue because PPP has good
>    >    authentication-authorization-accounting features (PS:
>    >    IP network access control, the radio network access control
>    >    should be the job of the SIM based stuff. They have to be
>    >    different because the operator and the ISP are not 
> the same entity)
>    >  - the GGSN routing issue because if addresses are 
> allocated by ISPs,
>    >    the GGSN has to manage a zillion of host (or /64) routes.
>    >  - the GGSN to ISP attachement (Gi) because there is no reason to
>    >    not reuse the current ADSL solution (ATM (sic!) to BASs).
>    
>    Are you suggesting that the 3GPP should replace the current PDP
>    context concept with PPP?
> 
> => no, PPP is already in the concept (there are three PDP 
> context types:
> IPv4, IPv6 and PPP).

I think I am somehow missing your point in this later extraction of your
mail. As you say these options are available in the standards. Was your
point to just note this in the discussion or did you have some other
point that you wanted to get through?

Cheers,

Jonne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:44:59 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
   
=> this is a typical example of how some 3GPP people don't want to
understand that most of us just like to use the 3GPP stuff in order
to transport the traffic only... But I am not afraid, regulation bodies
will explain again the meaning of the word "open" and will get what
we'd like one day (:-).

   I think I am somehow missing your point in this later extraction of your
   mail. As you say these options are available in the standards.

=> exactly.

Regards

[email-masked]