RE: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP: New Requirement

From: Stark, Barbara ^lt;Barbara.Stark@BellSouth.com>
Date: Thu Feb 15 2007 - 12:50:10 EST

The identifier(s) to use is very simple for an ISP LIS to determine.
It's not at all difficult to provide the ISP LIS with very specific
rules, based on how it interconnects with the access provider.

What is difficult, is figuring out a standard format for a URI user part
that would allow for all the variations in combinations of IDs that
exist, so that a standard format could be defined that would cover all
interconnection models. Section 8 of the NENA Location TID
(http://www.nena.org/media/files/08-505_20061221.pdf) provides 5
different examples of interconnection models, and the IDs that would
need to be used in each of these cases. In this document, scenario 1
uses the IP address, scenario 2 uses NAS-ID and ATM PVC, scenario 3 uses
2 VLAN tags, scenario 4 uses IP address, and scenario 5 uses L2TP tunnel
ID (source and destination) and PPPoE session ID. These are just 5
possible examples, and should not be considered exhaustive.
Interconnection models are still evolving.

As for "defining" OBO, I agree that there's definitely confusion over
this term. I think we really need to distinguish between LIS to LIS
queries, and some external entity querying the (ISP) LIS for location of
an end device. In the 2nd case, I think IP address is probably all that
the querying entity has, that the ISP LIS would understand and be able
to use. LIS to LIS is somewhat different.
Barbara

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Stark, Barbara
Cc: Otmar Lendl; geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP: New Requirement

On Feb 15, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Stark, Barbara wrote:

> Interesting idea. I'm not sure it works for LIS to LIS, though I could

> see it working for "true" OBO. The ID is the main problem.
> Frequently, it's not a single ID that identifies the connection in
> question, to the access provider. It's frequently not an IP address.
> Usually, it's a combination of IDs that would be needed to uniquely
> identify the line, and the combination to use will vary per access
> provider, and there may be several variations within an access
> provider (as the access network evolves, new users frequently are
> placed on newer platforms, and old users are left alone). I think that

> to try to figure out some way to support all the needed variations
> within a single URI would be really difficult. Parameterizing the
> various IDs would be simpler.
> Barbara

Well, the formulation of the URI is up to you. The user part doesn't
have to be an IP address, or can be a combination of things. That's
completely up to you. And multiple URIs may point to the same entity.

If what you are saying is that you cannot determine an identifier to
use, then I'm afraid no protocol will solve your problem.

I'm also now concerned that the concept of OBO is not well defined.
When originally presented to the working group, the OBO identifier was
an IP address. Now you are saying it usually is not.

-andy

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:50:10 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 15 2007 - 12:50:06 EST