| RE: Issue 287: Roaming Model | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Bari, Farooq (Farooq.Bari |
|
| Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:21:55 -0500 (EST) | |
I was planning not to respond to this but now that it is listed as a issue, here is my response. Glen's scenario Bigco.com contracts with Consort.com to provide remote access for Bigco's employees when they are traveling. Suppose also that Consort.com is a roaming partner of Megatel.com, which operates hotspots in coffeehouses around the world. A Bigco employee using her Bigco.com user ID, walks into a Megatel hotspot and tries to access the network. My response 1. Bigco can have its employee's handsets/laptops provisioned with a list of its preferred roaming partners lists which in this case would include Consort.com. 2. Megatel is a roaming partner of Consort.com and therefore can advertise Consort.com as its roaming partners if needed. One possible scenario is that: The Bigco employee with her Bigco credentials tries to authenticate herself. Megatel does not recognize her and sends her back list of its roaming partner and among them is Consort.com. The BigCo employees client was provisioned with BigCo's preferred roaming partner list and therefore it recognizes Consort and sends out a response that indicates its desire to use Consort (as a middle man). The client software behavior described here is not part of the draft and the client may decide to behave differently. Another possible scenarios is The Bigco employee upon entering the hotspot facility notices a sign saying that this Megatel operator faciltiy supports Consort customers as well. The user from its past experience or from information in its client software knows that it can use the network via Consort. So the BigCo employee sends out the first authentication request that includes the desire that she would like to use Consort (as a middle man). In this case the first message can be successful and no advertisement would be needed from MegaTel. Again this client software behavior is not part of the draft. > -----Original Message----- > From: eap-admin [at] frascone.com [mailto:eap-admin [at] frascone.com] On > Behalf Of > Bernard Aboba > Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 12:13 PM > To: eap [at] frascone.com > Subject: [eap] Issue 287: Roaming Model > > This issue, raised by Glen seems to relate to the roaming model implicitly > assumed by this document, and whether it is compatible with the IETF > roaming model as embodied in the products of the ROAMOPS WG. > > Glen has put forward a basic ROAMOPS roaming scenario, and has questioned > whether this scenario is supported by the document. > > Some questions raised by this issue include: > > o Are the roaming model assumptions and limitations clearly articulated in > the document? > > o Is the document capable of supporting basic roaming scenarios, such as > those articulated by Glen as well as other ROAMOPS documents? > _______________________________________________ > eap mailing list > eap [at] frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
-
Issue 287: Roaming Model Bernard Aboba, February 13 2005
- RE: Issue 287: Roaming Model Bari, Farooq, February 13 2005
- RE: Issue 287: Roaming Model Bernard Aboba, February 13 2005
- RE: Issue 287: Roaming Model Bari, Farooq, February 13 2005
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.