Re: [DMM] MNID Types

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Charles E. Perkins
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43 PM
> *To:* Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
> *Cc:* Vijay Devarapalli; [e-mail]
> *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 <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Date: *Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM
>     *To: *Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc: *Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Marco Liebsch
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *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)" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *À: *"Charlie Perkins" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Marco Liebsch"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, "Vijay Devarapalli"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *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 <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Date: *Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM
>     *To: *Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Marco Liebsch
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>     "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *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)"<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>  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"<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>  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:[e-mail]]
>
>                     Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42
>
>                     To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch;[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                     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"<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                     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"<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>  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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>
>                                     (sgundave)
>
>                                     Sent: Dienstag, 9. September 2014 23:30
>
>                                     To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Charlie Perkins;[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                                     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)"<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                                     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"
>
>                                         <[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                                         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
>
>                                         [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>                                     _______________________________________________
>
>                                     dmm mailing list
>
>                                     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             dmm mailing list
>
>             [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         dmm mailing list
>
>         [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dmm mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     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.