Re: [apps-discuss] AD Fail - MPTCP API

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 11/14/2012 7:06 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> I noted this text:
>
> As this address may not be valid any more if the first subflow is
> closed, the MPTCP stack MAY close the whole MPTCP connection if the
> first subflow is closed (i.e. fate sharing between the initial
> subflow and the MPTCP connection as a whole).  Whether to close the
> whole MPTCP connection by default SHOULD be controlled by a local
> policy.  Further experiments are needed to investigate its
> implications.
...
> The lack of user control for things like this has rendered other
> protocols a lot less useful than they might otherwise have been.


On its face, the choice to default to closing an entire session because
one of several channels goes away seems exactly wrong to me.

I would think that a major motivating factor for a multi-channel TCP is
robustness against an outage.  What the current normative language does
is to encourage making multi-channel TCP as fragile as single-channel.

Or have I missed something basic?

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net