[iccrg] Disadvantages of TCP connection splitters

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Fri, 10 January 2020 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077C512002E for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:54:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 odYyYKYQcJmw for <iccrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B09C61200F5 for <iccrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx11.uio.no ([129.240.10.83]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ipq3V-0001YN-NT for iccrg@irtf.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:54:09 +0100
Received: from ti0182q160-4250.bb.online.no ([82.164.31.203] helo=[10.0.0.14]) by mail-mx11.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ipq3V-000D5L-6S for iccrg@irtf.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:54:09 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Message-Id: <7FFBC144-5F59-41BD-A47D-D4AFEFA2BE4D@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:54:07 +0100
To: iccrg IRTF list <iccrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx11.uio.no: 82.164.31.203 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=82.164.31.203; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[10.0.0.14];
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 6F8F512F7497CBB60CFDDBBA2AFEA1C578036313
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iccrg/pG6ZPZi6AJAWK3mFeY8pgojEUBs>
Subject: [iccrg] Disadvantages of TCP connection splitters
X-BeenThere: iccrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of Internet Congestion Control Research Group \(ICCRG\)" <iccrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/iccrg>, <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iccrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:iccrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg>, <mailto:iccrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:54:15 -0000

Hi,

I’ve been thinking a lot about TCP connection splitters lately ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3135#section-2.4 ).

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.