Subject: RE: [Enum] fyi RE: I-D ACTION:draft-dommety-e212-dns-00.txt

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:31:58 -0700

At 04:50 PM 6/28/2001 +0200, Shaw, Robert wrote:
> > 3GPP (UMTS/3G standards body - under the umbrella of ITU) is
> > considering using SUA (SCCP User Adaptation Layer)  for transporting
> > mobile related SS7 messages in the Core network. Details of this study can
>
> > be found in TR 29.903. The aim is to transport these message over the
> > existing IP network.
>
>Isn't this Q.1901 (BICC)?

No.

>When you say "existing IP network", do you mean
>tunneling over the Internet

No

>or a private IP-based roaming network?

Could be, but need not be a private network( I am assuming that you mean 
the following by "private IP-based roaming network".
If operators have private network and are interconnected to a other 
operators via VPNs or some other exclusive network).

Think of the following example scenario. Basically the mobile networks will 
have an IP core to which
various network elements are connected (such as SIP server, SGSN etc). 
These cores will
be connected via an IP network (could be public or private).  Whether the 
signaling information goes via a signalling gateway or directly to the
end node depends on the operator.

Hope this clarifies,
Thanks,
Gopal

>With QoS and security issues, I'd imagine it'd have to be latter -
>something like GRX. If it's the latter, why would you put IMSIs
>into the public DNS? It'd be either a split or private DNS, wouldn't
>it? With the potential for fraud, I cannot imagine what would merit
>putting these into the public DNS.
>
>Bob
>--
>Robert Shaw <[email-masked]>
>ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor
>International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
>Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Shaw, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:50:57 +0200

> be found in TR 29.903. The aim is to transport these message over the 

Isn't this Q.1901 (BICC)? When you say "existing IP network", do you mean 
tunneling over the Internet or a private IP-based roaming network? 
With QoS and security issues, I'd imagine it'd have to be latter - 
something like GRX. If it's the latter, why would you put IMSIs 
into the public DNS? It'd be either a split or private DNS, wouldn't 
it? With the potential for fraud, I cannot imagine what would merit 
putting these into the public DNS. 

Bob