[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    AW: IPng interim meeting and 3GPP
From:       "Paul Christ" <christ () rus ! uni-stuttgart ! de>
Date:       2001-05-28 8:51:10
[Download RAW message or body]

Dear all,

is your discussion - and if yes - how -  related
to the "UPT discussion" (Universal Personal Telecommunication)
of the IAB Wireless Internetworking Workshop February/March 2000
(see RFC 3002, 3.3.1  Discussion on User Identity)?
If not - who is pursuing questions of a
User Identity model?


Thanks


Paul Christ
IST project MobyDick
University of Stuttgart



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Thomas Narten
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2001 20:09
> An: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Betreff: IPng interim meeting and 3GPP
>
>
> As you know, the first day of the upcoming interim meeting in Seattle
> has been set aside for discussions with 3GPP on matters of IPv6. In
> preparation for this, The IETF IPv6 directorate put together a number
> of questions for 3GPP (appended below). Those questions were discussed
> at a recent 3GPP meeting and I'm including a response from Stephen
> Hayes, one of the 3GPP TSG chairs.
>
> I'm looking forward to a productive meeting in Seattle.
>
> Thomas
>
> From: Thomas Narten <narten@hygro.adsl.duke.edu>
> To: 3GPP_TSG_SA_WG2@LIST.ETSI.FR
> cc: Mikko Puuskari <mikko.puuskari@nokia.com>,
>     "Stephen Hayes (EUS)" <Stephen.Hayes@am1.ericsson.se>
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:29:32 -0400
> Subject: IPv6 Questions on 3GPP [Joint IETF-IPv6 / 3GPP meeting]
>
> The following set of questions was put together by the IPv6
> Directorate after an initial study of some 3GPP documents. This note
> is intended to start a dialog between the 3GPP & IETF communities on
> IPv6.
>
> Thomas Narten
>
> 3GPP is including IPv6 in its Release 5 specifications, an action that
> excites the IETF IPv6 community greatly. The 3GPP work will be an
> important driver for IPv6 deployment.  Having said that, the IPv6
> community has only a very limited understanding of how IPv6 will be
> used by 3GPP, e.g., which RFCs will be used, in what parts of the
> system they will be used, which parts are required and which are
> optional, etc.  We believe that it is in our mutual interest to
> understand and educate each other on our perspectives on how IPv6 can
> best be used to your advantage, which components (e.g., which RFCs)
> are needed, whether there are any missing pieces, etc.
>
> The IETF IPng WG will be holding an interim meeting in Seattle, WA
> starting May 30. The first day of meeting has been reserved for a
> joint meeting with members from 3GPP. It is our hope that such a
> meeting will facilitate direct technical interactions between 3GPP and
> IETF engineers on IPv6 issues.
>
> The following describes some general areas where we have some specific
> questions. These questions were put together after looking at some
> 3GPP documents that make reference to IPv6, including 23.060 and
> 23.221.
>
> - What is the addressing model for the network and handsets? Will each
>   handset be given a single 128-bit address and no more? Or will each
>   handset be given its own /64 (e.g. an entire network) so that it can
>   connect additional devices, say through a bluetooth or 802.11
>   interface?
>
>   A related question is how many additional devices (e.g., a laptop)
>   will be able to connect to a handset (e.g., via bluetooth) and use
>   IP.  Doing so would suggest each device would need an IPv6 address
>   and both the handset and the device being on the same subnet. One
>   way of providing such a capability would be to have each handset be
>   a router for a /64 subnet.  Is such a configuration envisioned now,
>   or in the future?
>
> - What parts of Neighbor Discovery (RFC 2461) will be implemented on
>   handsets? All of it? How will handsets using IPv6 communicate with
>   each other when on the same subnetwork (or link in IPv6
>   terminology)? Is ND needed to resolve addresses or does the handset
>   view its connection to the network as a point-to-point link with a
>   router on the other end (i.e., the GGSN)?
>
> - What is the scope of problem for which IPv6 is viewed as a solution?
>   I.e., what features of IPv6 are needed immediately, and which are
>   assumed to be of interest at some later point in the future?
>
> - How permanent are the IPv6 addresses that are assigned to handsets?
>   From our understanding, interface identifiers are assigned by the
>   GGSN, and handsets then form addresses by combining the interface
>   identifier with a prefix learned through Router Advertisements
>   (RAs). Is it envisioned that information specific to the mobile will
>   be used to form the interface identifier (e.g., IMSI)? Or will the
>   interface identifier assigned to a handset change over time (e.g.,
>   if it is power cycled or moves)? This question is important as it
>   will determine whether addresses are effectively permanent in the
>   sense that it will be stable for weeks or more.
>
>   In the case that addresses remain stable for weeks or longer, are
>   any of the concerns raised in RFC 3041 viewed as applicable?
>
> - Will handsets be dual stack (i.e., support both IPv4 and IPv6) or
>   will they support only IPv6? Some of the documents suggest that in
>   the IM domain, IPv6 will be used "exclusively". Does that
>   specifically mean that IPv6 must be supported and the IPv4 doesn't
>   apply?
>
> - Where will IPsec (RFC 2401) be used? Will IPsec be implemented on
>   the handset (to provide true end-to-end encryption) or will IPsec
>   terminate at the GGSN, with the remainder of the path (from the GGSN
>   to the handset) protected by link-layer encryption?
>
>   Note that it is our understanding that in the current specs MN to
>   SGSN communication is protected by GSM privacy but there is nothing
>   specified between the SGSN and the GGSN. Will the tunnel between the
>   SGSN and the GGSN will be carried over the Internet?
>
>   Finally, are there any plans to implement IKE? If not, how will
>   IPsec security associations be created?
>
> - Are there any requirements in the area of QOS? Are diffserv and/or
>   RSVP being looked at as something that is important?
>
> - What transition schemes will be used in communicating with IPv4
>   sites? Some of the 3GPP documents make mention of NAT-PT as well as
>   automatic and configured tunnels. However, automatic tunnels only
>   make sense if address numbering is done in a certain way. It is not
>   clear that the use of automatical tunnels makes sense in the 3GPP
>   environment. Has there been any study of schemes, in addition to
>   NAT-PT, that allow IPv6-only and IPv4-only nodes to communicate?
>
> - Which IPv6 RFCs does 3GPP consider to be part of IPv6, in the sense
>   that they must be implemented as part of the 3GPP Release 5
>   specification? Are all of these RFCs to be implented in their
>   entirety, or are only subsets of (some of) them needed? Is there any
>   intention to take parts of the IETF protocols and modify or extend
>   them?
>
> - Are there any plans or needs with regards to compression? For
>   example, the IETF has existing standards (e.g., RFC 2507) and
>   on-going efforts to compress IP traffic over link layers. Is it
>   anticipated that 3GPP will have needs here?
>
> - What DNS components will be used? For example, IPv6 addresses can
>   reside in either AAAA or A6 records. Will resolvers in handsets be
>   implementing A6 records? Or both AAAA & A6?
>
> Many of the above questions are somewhat open-ended and would probably
> benefit from face-to-face discussion. It is our hope that this will
> occur at the Seattle meeting and/or through e-mail followups. In
> addition, we would welcome any questions you might have on IPv6
> issues.
>
> Overall, we would like to understand the overall 3GPP architecture and
> how IPv6 fits into it. 3GPP documents are organized and structured
> very differently from IETF documents, so for us it has been difficult
> to understand where and how IPv6 is being used and whether its usage
> will bring any unexpected surprises (e.g., are there any shortcomings
> or missing components?). We believe a technical discussion between the
> IETF and 3GPP communities on the topic of IPv6 would be mutually
> beneficial to both communities.
>
>
> From: "Stephen Hayes (EUS)" <Stephen.Hayes@am1.ericsson.se>
> To: deering@cisco.com, mikko.puuskari@nokia.com, narten@raleigh.ibm.com,
>         Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com, hinden@iprg.nokia.com
> Cc: tech@ipv6forum.com
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:27:09 -0500
> Subject: Additional info on May 30 IPnG/3GPP meeting
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The 3GPP has been invited by the IETF IPng WG to a one day discussion
> of how 3GPP will use IPv6.  The meeting will be held on May 30, 2001
> at Redmond, WA.  Please see
> (http://research.microsoft.com/ietf-ipv6-meeting) for info about the
> meeting.  At the 3GPP SA2 meeting held on May 14-18 there was a
> discussion of what should be presented by the 3GPP at the IPng
> meeting.  Hopefully this quick synopsis of those discussions will help
> in preparation of the meetings.
>
> Based upon the discussions I would expect the following at the meeting
> from the 3GPP side:
>
> 1. A presentation of the 3GPP architecture.  This will include a
>    discussion of:
>    - the reference models
>    - 3GPP protocol stacks (involving IPv4/IPv6)
>    - 3GPP packet concepts (PDP context, APN, GTP)
>    - IP address allocation
>
> 2. A high level presentation on the 3GPP QoS architecture
>
> 3. Verbal answers to the questions posted previously( the list of
>    questions is attached at the end for convenience).  The IETF may
>    find the answers unsatisfying as most of the answers are "it is an
>    implementation decision" (Questions 2,4,5,8,11) or "for further
>    study" (Questions 6,9,10).  Some concrete answers are given below:
>
>    - Q 1 - There is currently no capability defined to allocate a
> subnetwork
>    - Q 3 - The main need is the address space
>    - Q 7 - Yes there are requirements - to be discussed in QoS
> presentation
>
> Of course, these quick answers and the terms "implementation decision"
> and "for further study" leave lots of degrees of freedom, so I would
> not recommend waiting for the answers delivered by the 3GPP delegates
> to get the full flavor of the answers.
>
> 4. Verbal guidelines for what 3GPP documents are relevant and how they
>    fit together.
>
> There will be several 3GPP experts at the meeting, so I would expect a
> lively discussion.  The presentations will be being refined this week
> on the 3GPP SA2 mailing list.  The latest copies of the presentations
> should be available on the mailing list.
>
> Best regards, Stephen Hayes
> 3GPP CN Chair
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]