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

From: Delecki Andrew-Y10658 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:58:51 -0800

All,

I wish to clarify that Gi interface is not interface to ISP (Internet Service Provider).
Being attached to PLMN is already equivalent to being connected to ISP.
Gi allows PLMN user to connect to any external network provided there aren't subscription restrictions. These networks are: internet, intranets, IMS etc.
The notion of ISP is changed in packet switched network.

Regards,

Andrew Delecki
Motorola

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 11:57 AM
To: Francis Dupont
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-wasserman-3gpp-advice-00.txt 

Hi Francis,

I'm not sure that I understand that second issue that you raised
in your response to the IPv6-3GPP document:

At 08:56 AM 12/4/01 , Francis Dupont wrote:
>The second concern is a bit different, GGSNs will be the point of
>connection to an IP world (the Internet, an Intranet) only if the
>regulation bodies are not involved. We already know the vertical
>integration in a walled garden dream of telecom operators but
>fortunately regulation bodies (like ART in France) are here in
>order to require a real open market for IP services. This is not
>new and this already happened for ADSL, so I believe we'll get
>similar solutions.
>If the point of connection to IP is a NAS (Network Access Server)
>of an ISP, 

Are you saying that the regulating bodies in France will require
3GPP providers to go through existing ISPs to get their Internet
service?  If so, how does this change anything?

In our perfect world, 3GPP nodes will be running Internet applications
over IPv6.  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).

>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?  This would be a substantial architectural
change to 3GPP, and is outside of the scope of our document.

Margaret

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------