Re: MNID Types
"Charles E. Perkins" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Organization | Blue Skies |
| Message-ID | <5424844C.1020101__19812.0976369411$1411679342$gmane$org@computer.org> |
Hello Fred, I can include DUID-UUID as an identifier type, and cite RFC 4122. Is this sufficient, or do I need to also do something related to DHCPv6 DUID? I did not see any specific connection between this type of identifier and the RFID discussion. Is there something that relates the two types? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/25/2014 2:00 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Charlie, > > I am interested in node IDs that can be represented in a DHCPv6 DUID. > There is > > RFC6355 which encodes a node ID based on DUID-UUID (Universally Unique > > IDentifier). AFAICT, the UUID is a 128-bit container formatted per RFC4122 > > specifications that includes a time portion and a node ID portion. Any > chance > > this would satisfy what you are looking for? > > Thanks - Fred > > *From:*dmm [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Charles E. Perkins > *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43 PM > *To:* Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > *Cc:* Vijay Devarapalli; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [DMM] MNID Types > > > Hello Sri, > > Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it > valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > Hi Hakima, > > That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 > identifier as well. > > Regards > > Sri > > *From: *Hakima Chaouchi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Date: *Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM > *To: *Sri Gundavelli <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc: *Charlie Perkins <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Marco Liebsch > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Vijay Devarapalli <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Subject: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types > > Hello Folks, > > Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for > moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio > Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also > relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? > > Regards, > > Hakima > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *De: *"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *À: *"Charlie Perkins" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Marco Liebsch" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, "Vijay Devarapalli" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Envoyé: *Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 > *Objet: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types > > Hi Charlie, > > Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the > base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … > > Regards > > Sri > > *From: *Charlie Perkins <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Date: *Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM > *To: *Sri Gundavelli <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Marco Liebsch > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, Vijay Devarapalli <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Subject: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types > > > Hello folks, > > I propose to submit the ....-00.txt document as it is to the Internet > Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to > the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > <Changing the subject line to reflect the MNId discussion> > > > > > > Marco, > > > > > > Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. > > > > - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for > > carrying the Mac address > > - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's > > > > In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a > > single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment > > consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. > > > > Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single > > subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway > > to do the BCE lookup. > > > > If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error > > cases. Is that really needed ? > > > > > > I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different > > container option to carry such information. Something like a > > complementary identifier option. > > Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it > > is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a > > Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We > > still need to have identifier there ? > > > > > > > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch"<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > > No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two > > things: > > > > Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message > > and I see the value in being > > flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with > > different sub-types are present in > > a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. > > No big problem to solve, but > > to be considered in implementations. > > > > If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to > > do other things than identifying > > the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wondering if it would > > not be more appropriate > > to go for a different container option to carry such information. > > Something like a complementary > > identifier option. > > > > marco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42 > > To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch;[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Cc: Vijay Devarapalli > > Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering.. > > > > Hello Charlie, > > > > Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It > > does not > > require the identifier to be bound to a physical device or a interface > > identity. > > But, we have clearly seen requirements where the need is for generating > > identifiers based on some physical identifiers. Those physical > > identifiers include > > IMSI, MSISDN, IMEI, MAC ..etc. If we can define a type for each of the > > source > > and the rules for generating MN-ID based using those sources, the sender > > and > > receiver will have clear guidance on how to use the spec. Some pointers, > > explanation and examples for each of those identifiers will greatly help > > avoid > > inter-op issues. > > > > > > Regards > > Sri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/10/14 3:21 PM, "Charlie Perkins"<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hello folks, > > > > I think it's best to consider the MNID as simply living in a space of > > identifiers, and not worry too much about whether it's a logical > > identifier or a physical identifier. If the former, then somewhere > > (perhaps below the network layer) the logical identifier has been bound > > to something in the physical interface, but that's not our problem. > > > > The number space for types of MNIDs is likely to stay pretty empty, so > > I'd say we could add as many types as would be convenient for the > > software designers. So, we could conceivably have several MNIDs > > defined that all "looked like" NAIs (which, themselves, "look like" > > FQDNs). > > > > Regards, > > Charlie P. > > > > > > > > On 9/10/2014 8:11 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > Yes. Currently, the MNID is if the nai format and is overloaded. The > > MNID in 3GPP specs is the IMSI-NAI (IMSI@REALM), its based on the > > IMSI. Ex: > > "<IMSI>@epc.mnc<MNC>.mcc<MCC>.3gppnetwork.org² > > > > We also have MAC48@REALM; > > > > We also have approaches to transform MAC to Pseudo IMSI, and then > > carry IMSI-NAI as the MN-ID. > > > > > > So, we need unique sub-types for each of the types/sources. > > > > MN-Id based on IMSI, MSISDN, IMEI, MAC .. > > > > Also, do we need to distinguish between IMSI and IMSI-NAI ? > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > On 9/10/14 6:29 AM, "Marco Liebsch"<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It seems the MNID is somehow overloaded to carry both, node-specific > > IDs, e.g. MAC, as well as subscriber IDs, which is the IMSI. > > There may be value in adding the IMEI to the list of possible types > > of node-specific IDs. > > > > marco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli > > (sgundave) > > Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30 > > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins;[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Cc: Vijay Devarapalli > > Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering.. > > > > Two more comments. > > > > > > > > 4.) I'd also use sub-type value of (2) for IMSI. Just to align with > > the sub-types defined for MN Id defined for ICMP. I suspect there > > are some implementations already using sub-type (2). Please see > > the other thread. > > > > > > 5.) For each of the sub-types, we need text including examples and > > some > > explanation on how they are used. > > > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > On 9/9/14 2:20 PM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Charlie, > > > > This is good. Thanks. > > > > > > 1.) If EUI-48 and EUI-64 addresses are derived of a 48-bit IEEE > > 802.2 > > address, why do we need to two sub-types ? Why not have just one > > sub-type for mac based identifiers ? > > > > 2.) Sub type value (1) is currently used. Its currently overloaded > > for > > IMSI-NAI (3GPP specs) and generic NAI based identifiers. Given the > > definition of new sub-types, we need some text explaining the > > motivation > > > > 3.) Proposed Sub-type value of (2) for IPv6 address. What exactly > > is > > this ? Are these CGA-based IPv6 addresses ? > > > > > > > > > > New Mobile Node Identifier Types > > > > +-----------------+------------------------+ > > | Identifier Type | Identifier Type Number | > > +-----------------+------------------------+ > > | IPv6 Address | 2 | > > | | | > > | IMSI | 3 | > > | | | > > | P-TMSI | 4 | > > | | | > > | EUI-48 address | 5 | > > | | | > > | EUI-64 address | 6 | > > | | | > > | GUTI | 7 | > > +-----------------+------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > Sri > > PS: Good to see Vijay back > > > > > > On 9/9/14 1:28 PM, "Charlie Perkins" > > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hello folks, > > > > Here's the last Internet Draft that we did, long ago expired: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-perkins-mext-4283mnids-01.txt > > > > I'll resubmit it with a few updates as a personal draft to dmm. > > > > Regards, > > Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > -- > > --------------------------------- > > Hakima Chaouchi > > Professor > > Telecom Sud Paris > > Institut Mines Telecom > > 9 rue Charles Fourier > > 91011 Evry > > 0160764443 > > > > > -- > Regards, > Charlie P. -- Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm