|
Stefano I like your idea of treating femtocells by adding a new
subsection. Note that while the Iuh interface indeed has important security
considerations, the Iub interface is also almost always encrypted. In any case,
the important issue here is to note the security requirements. The middlebox issue is an important one, which needs to be
noted. There will also be different scalability concerns, as a FGW
needs to handle many more femtocells than an RNC needs to handle NodeBs. Y(J)S From: Stefano Ruffini
[mailto:stefano.ruffini at ericsson.com] Hi Yaakov, I would suggests few updates to your proposals also based on some
comments that were made in Stockholm on this subject: 1. The femtocells application can be based on one of the
technologies already mentioned in 3.1.1 (and in fact the 250 ppb
requirement which is related to home base stations, which is the way 3GPP calls
the femtocell, is already mentioned in this section). In order to avoid misunderstanding, the new
section could be called 3.1.2, "Specific aspects related to
Femtocells application". Some rephrasing in the introductory text might also be needed (e.g.
remove "presented in Section 3.1.1.x " as scenarios that assume
private network). The Notes related to "Private Networks" could be updated
as follows: Note 2: assumes a private network, (this may not be true in case
of femtocells) 2. The first point on IPSEC is based on still quite vague
considerations (no real study or test has been presented on this topic showing
the actual degradation). I would suggest to be more generic , for
instance saying that the impacts on performances due to IPSEC are under study. 3. Regarding alternative solution to IPSEC perhaps rather than
refer to "secure links" (which in case needs to be clarified), it
seems more appropriate to refer to existing solutions (e.g. built in
authentication) The above comments would results in updating the text as follows: " 3.1
Cellular Backhauling ... 3.1.1 Cellular Backhauling Requirements ..... 3.1.2 Specific
aspects related to the Femtocells application Femtocell
application may use a portion of the public and private network infrastructure
to provide connectivity and backhaul service between the femtocell device and
gateway. The use of a public network facility implies that some level of
network security is necessary, as compared to the scenarios which assume that
the connectivity and backhaul service is done over a private network (eg., see
Note (2)), typically for macrocell application. In addition the number of
femtocell devices can easily extend to hundreds of thousands, much higher than
the number of macrocells. The following requirements should be considered for
femtocell deployments:
3.1.3
Cellular Backhaul Requirements Summary ... " Best Regards Stefano From: tictoc-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:tictoc-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein From: Xie Lei Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:50 AM Subject: [TICTOC] Adding the Femto Synchronization requirments
in requirement document
Dear
All As
the agreement in IETF75# meeting, we decide to add the femto synchronization
requirements in requirement document. After checking the requirement document,
i think, the best way is to add a new section as following: 3.2.1
Cellular Backhauling of Femtocells Femtocell
application may use a portion of the public and private network infrastructure
to provide connectivity and backhaul service between the femtocell device and
gateway. The use of a public network facility implies that some level of
network security is necessary, as compared to the scenarios presented in
Section 3.1.1.x which assumed that the connectivity and backhaul service is
done over a private network (eg., see Note (2)), typically for macrocell
application. In addition the number of femtocell devices can easily extend to
hundreds of thousands, much higher than the number of macrocells. The following
requirements should be considered for femtocell deployments:
Please give your comments on these words, Thanks Best Regards Rock |