From nobody Mon Feb 24 08:57:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD731A01F4 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:57:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30gKIM3VSAA5 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8551A01FC for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:57:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id pv20so6067393lab.16 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:57:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9h7SxqJ1xYeanjhoxI5119L980uFcd7TP96GMcmC7Ac=; b=NEpTpJlvVDFGZiK5pXZ1QkNChN5hzGeLnCwIrYMxVz9EHBgN6+segJypsbO9raR3hk egngOkn0YawEsD1G2whQPZR4EUZsh+6jBX11ENq2nBoEZU4a3g2kaaB7JLkxlrNc3GB4 kAEpWBHcVQTo1hCHdIQTlilwYjmZ0lljearroc6I6l1jpgqYGzWxrtI2/CZYNFZC1Z9Q ADOh4okrJIMuKj7BAWp3/bZbBXbuOBqkz8Y/sdbc3vy9IIvz9hsnk2QOR8Wrb7f9jPw6 xSud9fchUKEZNlcrDTkxmdAaEEe5pC3Bp//asnJgVgeS9QBybxdldA79pO9v/7qtr+R6 bICg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.2.131 with SMTP id 3mr2731837lau.20.1393261039325; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.176.234 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:57:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:57:19 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: hiaps@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c674c54174404f329dda7 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hiaps/MzSE9wlOhm82A7_1T6NLdi46Vw8 Cc: Xueli , Mohamed Boucadair , brandon.williams@akamai.com, Dan Wing , "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" Subject: Re: [hiaps] Hiaps use cases X-BeenThere: hiaps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing in Wi-Fi Access \(hiaps\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:57:28 -0000 --089e013c674c54174404f329dda7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Folks, We had brought up this issue way back in December. Now we observe that a new version of the host identifier scenarios draft has been submitted, at: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04.txt This new document as 11 cases: 3.1. Use Case 1: CGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Use Case 2: A+P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Use Case 3: Application Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Use Case 4: Open Wi-Fi or Provider Wi-Fi . . . . . . . . 5 3.5. Use Case 5: Policy and Charging Control Architecture . . 7 3.6. Use Case 6: Cellular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7. Use Case 7: Femtocells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.8. Use Case 8: Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.9. Use Case 9: Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.10. Use Case 10: Traffic Detection Function . . . . . . . . . 12 3.11. Use Case 11: Fixed and Mobile Network Convergence . . . . 13 It seems like use case 11 is about prefix sharing use case for which a detailed document will be submitted soon. This means that with Rev 04 of host id scenarios draft all of hiaps issues are covered. I hope the authors can confirm. Regards, Dirk & Behcet On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > I started a new tread on the use case issue that Med brought up. > Based on what Med said in his previous mail: > > >IMHO before having solution-oriented discussion, let's see first if > people > >understand well the problem space and the set of use cases identified > >so far. > > for this we currently have: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-03.txt > > and > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-aps-prefix-sharing-usecase-00.txt > > We are expecting a new draft on this and I know we already have some > people working on it. > > Regards, > > Behcet > --089e013c674c54174404f329dda7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Folks,

We had brough= t up this issue way back in December. Now we observe that a new version of = the host identifier scenarios draft has been submitted, at:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifie= r-scenarios-04.txt

This new document as 11 cases:
3.1.  Use Case 1: CGN . . =
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Use Case 2: A+P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Use Case 3: Application Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Use Case 4: Open Wi-Fi or Provider Wi-Fi  . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  Use Case 5: Policy and Charging Control Architecture  . .   7
     3.6.  Use Case 6: Cellular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.7.  Use Case 7: Femtocells  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.8.  Use Case 8: Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.9.  Use Case 9: Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.10. Use Case 10: Traffic Detection Function . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.11. Use Case 11: Fixed and Mobile Network Convergence . . . .  13
It seems like use case 11 is about prefix sharing use case for w= hich a detailed document will be submitted soon. This means that with Rev 0= 4 of host id scenarios draft all of hiaps issues are covered.

I hope the authors can confirm.

Regards,

Dirk & Behcet


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:32 A= M, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
I s= tarted a new tread on the use case issue that Med brought up.
Base= d on what Med said in his previous mail:

>IMHO before having solution-oriented discussion, let'= s see first if=20 people
>understand well the problem space and the set of use cases= =20 identified
>so far.

We = are expecting a new draft on this and I know we already have some people wo= rking on it.

Regards,

Behcet

--089e013c674c54174404f329dda7-- From nobody Mon Feb 24 17:27:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85651A0360 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:27:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.747 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ft-NJ7l4HTJt for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14C11A0359 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBL90906; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:27:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:26:58 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:27:03 +0000 Received: from NKGEML504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.47]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:27:00 +0800 From: Xueli To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" , "hiaps@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Hiaps use cases Thread-Index: AQHPMYGH0dIviH6Pv0SXd5EgffVi0JrFJYMA Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:26:59 +0000 Message-ID: <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B448F7DF5F@nkgeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.97.86] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B448F7DF5Fnkgeml504mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hiaps/uLcPYh5zEs9FVBqkJOII3JMGB5M Cc: Mohamed Boucadair , "brandon.williams@akamai.com" , Dan Wing , "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" Subject: Re: [hiaps] Hiaps use cases X-BeenThere: hiaps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing in Wi-Fi Access \(hiaps\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:27:10 -0000 --_000_01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B448F7DF5Fnkgeml504mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all This draft lists several scenarios which encounters the issues of the host= unique identification. Two more new use cases are added from version 03. In Use case 10: operators expect that the traffic subject to the packet ins= pection is routed via the Traffic Detection Function (TDF) function as requirement specified in 3GPP [TS29.212]. This assumption only holds if= it is possible to identify individual UEs behind NA(P)T. In use case 11: A UE is connected to the RG, routed back to the mobile netw= ork. The mobile operator's PCRF needs to maintain the interconnect with the Broadband Policy Control Function (BPCF) in the BBF network for Policy c= ontrol. The hosts (i.e. UEs) attaching to fixed broadband network with a NA(P)T d= eployed should be identified. In IPv6 network, prefix sharing issues should be resolved. The use cases in this draft covers the all the hiaps issues right now. I hope this clarification is useful. Best Regards Li Xue From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:57 AM To: hiaps@ietf.org Cc: Mohamed Boucadair; Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de; Xueli; Dan Wing; brandon.w= illiams@akamai.com Subject: Re: Hiaps use cases Folks, We had brought up this issue way back in December. Now we observe that a ne= w version of the host identifier scenarios draft has been submitted, at: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-= 04.txt This new document as 11 cases: 3.1. Use Case 1: CGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Use Case 2: A+P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Use Case 3: Application Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Use Case 4: Open Wi-Fi or Provider Wi-Fi . . . . . . . . 5 3.5. Use Case 5: Policy and Charging Control Architecture . . 7 3.6. Use Case 6: Cellular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7. Use Case 7: Femtocells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.8. Use Case 8: Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.9. Use Case 9: Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.10. Use Case 10: Traffic Detection Function . . . . . . . . . 12 3.11. Use Case 11: Fixed and Mobile Network Convergence . . . . 13 It seems like use case 11 is about prefix sharing use case for which a deta= iled document will be submitted soon. This means that with Rev 04 of host i= d scenarios draft all of hiaps issues are covered. I hope the authors can confirm. Regards, Dirk & Behcet On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Behcet Sarikaya > wrote: I started a new tread on the use case issue that Med brought up. Based on what Med said in his previous mail: >IMHO before having solution-oriented discussion, let's see first if people >understand well the problem space and the set of use cases identified >so far. for this we currently have: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-= 03.txt and http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-aps-prefix-sharing-usecase-00.txt We are expecting a new draft on this and I know we already have some people= working on it. Regards, Behcet --_000_01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B448F7DF5Fnkgeml504mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all

 = ;

This draft= lists several scenarios which encounters the issues of  the host uniq= ue identification.

 = ;

Two more n= ew use cases are added from version 03.

 = ;

In Use case 10: operators ex=
pect that the traffic subject to the packet inspection is=

 &nbs= p; routed via the Traffic Detection Function (TDF) function as

   requirement spe=
cified in 3GPP [TS29.212].  This assumption only holds if it is possib=
le to

 &nbs= p; identify individual UEs behind NA(P)T.

 = ;

In use case 11: A UE is conn=
ected to the RG, routed back to the mobile network.  The

 &nbs= p; mobile operator's PCRF needs to maintain the interconnect with the<= /o:p>

 &nbs= p; Broadband Policy Control Function (BPCF) in the BBF network for Policy c= ontrol.

  The= hosts (i.e. UEs) attaching to fixed broadband network with a NA(P)T deploy= ed should be identified.

In IPv6 ne= twork, prefix sharing issues should be resolved.

 = ;

The use ca= ses in this draft covers the all the hiaps issues right now.

I hope thi= s clarification is useful.

 = ;

Best Regar= ds

Li Xue

From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:57 AM
To: hiaps@ietf.org
Cc: Mohamed Boucadair; Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de; Xueli; Dan Wing; br= andon.williams@akamai.com
Subject: Re: Hiaps use cases

 

= Folks,

= We had brought up this issue way back in December. Now we observe that a ne= w version of the host identifier scenarios draft has been submitted, at:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-id= entifier-scenarios-04.txt

This new document as 11 cases:<= o:p>

3.1.  Use Case 1: CGN . . . . . . . . . . . =
. . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Use Case 2: A=
+P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Use Case 3: A=
pplication Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Use Case 4: O=
pen Wi-Fi or Provider Wi-Fi  . . . . . . . .   5<=
/span>
     3.5.  Use Case 5: P=
olicy and Charging Control Architecture  . .   7<=
/span>
     3.6.  Use Case 6: C=
ellular Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.7.  Use Case 7: F=
emtocells  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8<=
/span>
     3.8.  Use Case 8: O=
verlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

     3.9.  Use Case 9: E=
mergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

     3.10. Use Case 10: Traff=
ic Detection Function . . . . . . . . .  12


   =
  3.11. Use Case 11: Fixed and Mobile Network Convergence . . . . =
; 13


=
It seems like use case 11 is about prefix sharing use case for which a deta=
iled document will be submitted soon. This means that with Rev 04 of host i=
d scenarios draft all of hiaps issues
 are covered.

= I hope the authors can confirm.

= Regards,

Dirk & Behcet

=  

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM= , Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:

I started a new tread on the us= e case issue that Med brought up.

Based on what Med said in his p= revious mail:

=
>IMHO before having solution-oriented discussion, let's see first if peo= ple
>understand well the problem space and the set of use cases identified >so far.

= We are expecting a new draft on this and I know we already have some people= working on it.

= Regards,

Behcet

 

--_000_01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B448F7DF5Fnkgeml504mbxchi_--