Subject: Re: Bang-path routing

From: "Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:56:08 +0300

Hi Alan,

This is definitely an intresting and usefull discussion. As 3GPP/WiMAX seems to be referenced ;) could you, for my education, also point out who belong to future "who else/no one"? What amount of subcribers are expected to be there?

Cheers,
	Jouni

--- alkuperäinen viesti ---
Lähettäjä: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Aihe: Re: Bang-path routing
Päivämäärä: 21. lokakuuta 2008
Aika: 9:04:02

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Ugh.  RFC 5113 (which is Informational) points out a number of issues
> with bang-path routing as well as RFC 4284.  BTW, aside from 3GPP and
> WiMAX, who else is pushing bang-path routing?

  No one.

  Historical users of prefix/suffix routing in the WiFi / Dial-up
roaming space want to get rid of it.  Everyone has realized that it's
expensive, fragile, unmaintainable, and inflexible.

  This is a significant change from even a year ago.

>   Seeing that the text was there only for 3GPP, and not for traditional
> (or currently deployed) RADIUS systems, it would seem useful to delete
> it.  If 3GPP wants that format, they can define it themselves."
> 
> They specifically requested the IETF to define it so as to enable a
> single approach. 

  With... who?  WiMAX can already reference the 3GPP specs.  There's no
need for this in IETF documents if no one else wants it.

  Many WiFi operators have WiMAX spectrum.  And they are pushing
strongly for the same solution to apply to both arenas.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:14:20 +0200

Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj wrote:
> This is definitely an intresting and usefull discussion. As
> 3GPP/WiMAX seems to be referenced ;) could you, for my education,
> also point out who belong to future "who else/no one"?

  I'm afraid I can't parse that sentence.

> What amount of subcribers are expected to be there?

  "Expected"?  I thought I had made it clear that *current* network
providers dislike the prefix/suffix/bangpath routing.  All of them.

  There was a GRWG call a few weeks ago where this idea was discussed.
The overwhelming majority of people on the call agreed with the summary
I've presented here.

  Perhaps you could explain why you're talking about "future" and
"expected" subscribers when my messages referred to current networks,
and to the traditional methods they used for AAA roaming.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:17:34 +0200

Hi Alan,

>   I'm afraid I can't parse that sentence.

I was just curious to know who are involved in addition to mentioned
3GPP/WiMAX. "All" and "no one" did not say much at least to me. Did
you refer to a group of roaming network providers or some consortiums?

> providers dislike the prefix/suffix/bangpath routing.  All of them.

Ok. My mistake.

> The overwhelming majority of people on the call agreed with 

Ok. Good to know.

> and to the traditional methods they used for AAA roaming.

As noted above I wasn't clear with the "current" part. Anyway, my
interpretation
of "Many WiFi operators have WiMAX spectrum.  And they are pushing
strongly for
the same solution to apply to both arenas." was that some of the planned
roaming
environment is not functional as we speak.. thus my "future".
Sorry if I confused you :)

Jouni

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:54:04 -0700

Alan DeKok said:

"  There was a GRWG call a few weeks ago where this idea was discussed.
The overwhelming majority of people on the call agreed with the summary
I've presented here."

As discussed in RFC 5113, the scenarios for bang-path routing
are relatively specialized.  As envisaged in WiMAX global
roaming, there should not be a situation where there are multiple
routes to a given AAA realm.  Similarly, roaming will typically
only occur to networks which have previously configured in some
way (e.g. setting aside manual connections). 

Therefore it makes sense for the Wimax Forum Global Roaming WG to
avoid use of bang-path routing.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:05:44 +0200

> you refer to a group of roaming network providers or some consortiums?

  I work for a roaming provider.  All of the other roaming providers we
talk to are saying the same thing, as are all of our customers.

> environment is not functional as we speak.. thus my "future".

  Hmm... WiFi operators have existing roaming agreements that work
across dozens of operators, and many tens of millions of users.  We
*could* learn from this experience.

  Or, we could deploy a completely different solution for the WiMAX
space, and force the same operators / hubs / etc. to have two completely
independent systems for authenticating the same users.

  Neither the operators nor the hubs are in favor of this approach.

  Alan DeKok.