IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Banana] 答复: diff (banana load distribution, next-hop selection of multipath)

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 13 February 2017 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289A9129547 for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZGzVTCnpu-z for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26BD2129559 for <banana@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.84] ([128.9.184.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1DHkwZE013202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:46:59 -0800 (PST)
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, "Zuojing (2012 Laboratories)" <jing.zuo@huawei.com>
References: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7A6386E6A@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <C328BFD1-A2B7-4E95-956A-D553A8167922@gmail.com> <f5bc7430-45dd-c5a6-d376-9d349d40a373@isi.edu> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7A63A1C49@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <99F04B22-01AC-476C-A15A-1696B686A953@isi.edu> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7A63A1D7D@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <9c6339a0-be7a-5b26-acc8-b8b13108eeca@isi.edu> <956518A5-6371-4959-BBB8-1C4B9604DA0D@gmail.com> <E5EB799F-F922-4AB3-A77D-E8EFF1866A2E@gmail.com> <4AD902A48032F745A3D7866E6CAE8CB064BBD1D8@DGGEMM521-MBX.china.huawei.com> <029e994f-e5e8-08a2-6015-eb8dd2d692fb@isi.edu> <4AD902A48032F745A3D7866E6CAE8CB064BBD532@DGGEMM521-MBX.china.huawei.com> <E26769A7-8B3A-4D8B-8828-93F9E596B03C@rfc1035.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <b28ace89-b709-136e-b839-b1a61fda320c@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:47:00 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E26769A7-8B3A-4D8B-8828-93F9E596B03C@rfc1035.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/banana/LAiAxsvw9a2_iZ0jBY_CyY7Q3gU>
Cc: Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, BANANA WG/BoF <banana@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Banana] 答复: diff (banana load distribution, next-hop selection of multipath)
X-BeenThere: banana@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Bandwidth Aggregation for interNet Access: Discussion of bandwidth aggregation solutions based on IETF technologies." <banana.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/banana/>
List-Post: <mailto:banana@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:47:44 -0000

+1

I raised the point more to indicate that MPTCP is not relevant to the
charter.

Joe


On 2/13/2017 1:32 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2017, at 09:23, Zuojing (2012 Laboratories) <jing.zuo@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> BANANA needs not to distinguish subflows from TCP flows only if Service Providers require BANANA boxes to do such exemption For example, Service Providers may purposely let those flows already being conducted by other multipath technologies be “bypassed”. 
> Surely these sorts of issues are for the WG to discuss once it has been created? They shouldn’t be relevant to the matter at hand, namely the new WG’s charter.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email