Re: [fmc] Issue #1: Identification (was RE: List description)

Hi Tricci,

The short answer is traffic control or we say, policy control.
The operator should control the traffic from their subscribers, that is the main point.
I think the section 4.1 of the ps draft(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xue-intarea-fmc-ps-02.txt) would be helpful. :)

BR
Li

From: tso@zteusa.com [mailto:tso@zteusa.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:44 PM
To: Xueli
Cc: fmc@ietf.org; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Subject: Re: [fmc] Issue #1: Identification (was RE: List description)

Dear Li,

Please allow me to ask a simple question...

If the RG is not managed and controlled by the operator, why should the operator be responsible to solve the problem for the user's device behind the RG?

Could you please explain?  Thanks
Tricci

Xueli <xueli@huawei.com>
Sent by: fmc-bounces@ietf.org

04/13/2012 01:01 AM

To

"mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>

cc

"fmc@ietf.org" <fmc@ietf.org>

Subject

Re: [fmc] Issue #1: Identification (was RE:  List description)

Dear Med,

Thanks so much for your detailed explanation.
I am very glad to share some opinions as follows.

Let's see what are the scenarios prior to the discussion about the detailed port set solution.

There are several other general scenarios, such as the mobile subscriber is attached to
home WiFi or to the 3GPP femtocell  (H(e)NB) , where the mobile subscriber establishes
traffic transporting via the fixed broadband network.
In these scenarios, WiFi is converged into RG (residential gateway), additionally even femtocell maybe
converged later. Here the UEs must be behind RGs for services, where RG with NAT.

Let's back to the solutions.
In case of RG with NAT, it is not easy work to achieve the port set solution.
The RG is the user device, which doesn't belong to the operators. Even more, it
seems not possible at all to do pre-configured on RGs.

In addition, mentioned in the ps draft, the issue #2, which is the similar requirement essentially, also needs solutions.
Here, the port set would not work, either.

During the FMC work, we should concentrate on possible protocol solutions in IETF later. What about your idea?:)

Cheers
Li

_______________________________________________
fmc mailing list
fmc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc

--------------------------------------------------------

ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.

This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.