IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc-05.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 13 May 2016 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CE712D104 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 00:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 5WPAtmNl3VVL for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 00:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0690B12D0F3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 00:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 59F4822C607; Fri, 13 May 2016 09:01:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.24]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 311CF27C071; Fri, 13 May 2016 09:01:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9044:c5ee:4dd2:4f16%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Fri, 13 May 2016 09:01:30 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRrFVNTAzCV/cbokiPO3T/i9JgUJ+2cN6A
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 07:01:29 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008D7466E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20160509122456.4958.6416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPt1N1no3N3ETQnza6g-Kw31cHGBmzOTYyyC-k9QXyuKy-yz_w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008D73EF6@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAPt1N1nbrvVH+cVdG8BAHTJjjRSTr0CEt1ArdNgkYq2J+d1=YA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nbrvVH+cVdG8BAHTJjjRSTr0CEt1ArdNgkYq2J+d1=YA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008D7466EOPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.4.25.91516
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/pCGdNcfR-DvYy3mZUwa4mtSvsGw>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 07:01:36 -0000

Hi Ted,

Our (target) deployment model is what is depicted here: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-mptcp-1.pdf

The work is not only in the lab.

Cheers,
Med

De : Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2016 15:50
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : dhcwg@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc-05.txt

Okay, but I was really asking about the deployment model, not about which connections would be eligible for mptcp.   I'm trying to understand how this would actually work.   Is this something you guys have working in the lab?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:25 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi Ted,

This draft specifies DHCP options to tell a CPE how to contact its MPTCP concentrator(s).

Not all TCP connections issued from the LAN side are eligible to be relayed into MPTCP connections to benefit from WAN aggregation features. Only a subset of them will be selected according to a set of policies that are provisioned to the CPE and/or the concentrator. These polices are out of scope of this draft.

Cheers,
Med

De : dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] De la part de Ted Lemon
Envoyé : lundi 9 mai 2016 19:25
À : dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
Objet : Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc-05.txt

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:24 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>> wrote:
   This document focuses on the explicit deployment scheme where the
   identity of the MPTCP Concentrator(s) is explicitly configured on
   connected hosts.  This document specifies DHCP (IPv4 and IPv6)
   options to configure hosts with Multipath TCP (MPTCP) parameters.

It occurs to me that in principle you don't actually need (and probably don't want the security implications of) explicit configuration of MPTCP.

Why not instead just have an intelligent gateway that is aware that its network is multihomed.   When it sees a TCP connection come from a node on the network that solicits MPTCP, and sees a reply back from the target server that does not support MPTCP, it drops the SYN+ACK and redirects the connection through an MPTCP concentrator on the provider network using both available links.

Oh, or is that what you actually had in mind, and the DHCP option is just to tell the edge routers how to contact the concentrator?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email