Re: FPC carrier ID and network ID question

Hi Larry,

thanks for your feedback and valid doubts, as you pointed out an important point to discuss.
First of all, the space for a certain field in the ID can be increased. We may have a preceding
discussion about how the identifier format should look like; as proposed in this version of
the draft or differently.

The rationale behind the Client-ID, Agent-ID and DPN-ID to allow unambiguous identification
of a function instance associated with FPC and its location. 'Location' means to identify the
network, e.g. a certain datacenter, where a function is instantiated and operational.

Example: An IP switch, which can serve as Data Plane Node for mobility management, is
located in a local POP/datacenter. The datacenter can be identified in the Network ID field of
the complete identifier and should be unique within the carrier's network topology. In the example
you brought, the Network Code (MNC) identifies rather the carrier instead of a certain
spot of a single carrier's network topology.

In terms of FPC deployment, we may omit the Carrier-ID field in identifiers in case
we do not expose and use these identifiers outside of a single carrier. But it may be
useful to identify the carrier as well in case, for example, a Client of carrier 1 connects to an Agent
of Carrier 2. In case we need to keep a Carrier-ID field, it may comprise the complete
tuple of MCC/MNC as you refer to.

I hope that clarifies your question and we can follow up on that thread to find a suitable
format for the complete identifier.

Thanks,
Marco



From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Laporte, Laurent [CTO]
Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 18:33
To: [email protected]
Subject: [DMM] FPC carrier ID and network ID question

Hello,

I have a question regarding the Carrier ID and Network ID elements proposed in the DMM FPC protocol.  I am trying to  a) understand the meaning intended for Carrier and Network; and, b) reconcile these names with what is familiar to me as someone who works for a mobile service provider.  The problem that I'm basically running into is that there are only 8 bits assigned each for Carrier ID and Network ID.  I am accustomed to utilizing a PLMN, which is composed of an MCC and MNC, each having allowed values up to 999.  With only eight bits, there are fewer values than required for either MCC or MNC.  Eight bits for Carrier ID and Network ID seems to be quite constrained to me.

I suspect that something else is meant, but I cannot readily surmise what it might be.

Thanks,

Larry Laporte


________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm