Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus call: draft-giaretta-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:45:55 +0200

One more comment.

> Personally, I don't see the need to define a HA-AAA-NAS/DHCP interface, as
> draft-ohba recommends, because I believe this is and should remain an
> intra-operator interface that should not cross administrative boundaries. 

For this, is this a SHOULD or do you mean should = usually doesn't?  At least
talking to some carriers, they do currently have very strong adminstrative
boundries between their cellular networks and non-cellular networks (WLAN, DSL,
etc.).  Philosophically, cellular networks are often seen as high-value networks,
often ones that are regulated quite strongly, not to mention issues about licensing,
etc.  Therefore, some operators feel that they need to administer these networks
seperately.

John

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:19:57 -0800

John,

I think the issue is administrative boundaries from the network operator
perspective. If an operator manages multiple kinds of networks separated by
administrative boundaries, then these are, effectively, separate
administrative domains, and the boundaries should be respected. It is
basically a question of managability. Issues such as exposure of detailed
topology information (not only for security purposes, but also for purposes
of effective routing information and address management) need to be kept
within an administrative boundary inside which the network operator can
effectively manage. That's why there are two types of routing information
distribution protocols, one for inside an administrative domain and one for
outside. Exposing detailed address and topology information outside an
administrative domain through protocols that were originally designed for
configuring hosts within an administrative domain is not such a good idea in
my opinion, because it adds more complexity to the management task.
Naturally, others have different opinions.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:45 AM
Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus call: draft-giaretta-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt

One more comment.

> intra-operator interface that should not cross administrative boundaries.

For this, is this a SHOULD or do you mean should = usually doesn't?  At
least
talking to some carriers, they do currently have very strong adminstrative
boundries between their cellular networks and non-cellular networks (WLAN,
DSL,
etc.).  Philosophically, cellular networks are often seen as high-value
networks,
often ones that are regulated quite strongly, not to mention issues about
licensing,
etc.  Therefore, some operators feel that they need to administer these
networks
seperately.

John