Re: [iccrg] Disadvantages of TCP connection splitters

Joerg Deutschmann <> Tue, 10 March 2020 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE513A16BB for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5FyR0bMnyBZa for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:1025::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F0D3A16C6 for <>; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:1025::1e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48cLrf3c3JzPk5q; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:58:26 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fau-2013; t=1583859506; bh=lwKUxUkoel/37wvzuhkw5S2A3xFuZEin6z6bndabUZw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From:To:CC:Subject; b=DFZkTCqeckUUfHu1Vq0+r9XeKr+Jxq5mVUJI3qKh4543Nt01D6nCI7iK0FPd9cRmc KdAco6v1w+YD2tbQ6gBnbaVn5W/VFXR1+ISZNBMUAI8C6t+mrACfWYm86wN/QTWgc6 jaw86x374RTQDI6CfwPXjKvLpe0Rd0HV6G3KsYeaF6AzjpgdRDvieCuIbXr+pVTcdQ Lnr6Ouv7BB9ltu/HxH7TSxuc9TlFp+VOLT+8dR147bafRr4RvfIJuhCDrCaLBARDZ0 SOjEQAMEtGir4MPWPDdP2oyv5iCIZP0cGcfUn46oVfW0A8H8OOdogx+8brIbZQfqYS qvo9ah5y4s5GA==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at (RRZE)
X-RRZE-Flag: Not-Spam
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48cLrb6BpVzPjmQ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:58:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5C9840F1D4C; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:58:23 +0100 (CET)
References: <>
From: Joerg Deutschmann <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:58:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [iccrg] Disadvantages of TCP connection splitters
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of Internet Congestion Control Research Group \(ICCRG\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:58:39 -0000


not sure if this recent publication is interesting:
On the importance of TCP splitting proxies for future 5G mmWave communications, 2019,

(the authors are from simula Norway, so you are probably already aware of this work)

Best regards,

On 10.01.20 09:54, Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi,
> I’ve been thinking a lot about TCP connection splitters lately ( ).
> I’m curious: what are the real practical disadvantages of this type of PEPs that people have seen?
> I'll appreciate any kind of feedback, also anecdotes, but pointers to citable papers would be best.
> BTW, let’s keep multi-path apart from this discussion please. My question is about single path TCP.
> Cheers,
> Michael
> PS: I’m not trying to indirectly hint that such devices would be *always good*. However, the scenarios where they are not strike me as surprisingly narrow, so I wonder if I’m missing more.