Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71452131523 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 f1hVgic3w4eh for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE61B13151B for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 31A6AC05BE; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:00:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.31]) by opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1033D6008A; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:00:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::8c90:f4e9:be28:2a1%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:00:39 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]" <matthew.t.sargent@nasa.gov>, "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>
CC: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNYFYN3Pf6Ey0Kw29UUSw2QvQAZ8zuAABNtuoA=
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:00:39 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5041F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <02572A11-A7D5-49D2-A31A-61B575613DF3@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <02572A11-A7D5-49D2-A31A-61B575613DF3@nasa.gov>
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/-Rfv17wBqmnE7ezrCGesCYRwqWA>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:00:43 -0000

Hi Matt, 

Yes, I confirm. 

* Native MPTCP connections can be established directly without involving a proxy. 
* If the client is not MPTCP-capable but the server is MPTCP-capable, the communication leg between the proxy and that server will be placed using MPTCP. 

Please refer to, e.g., slide 12 of https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-mptcp-sessa-network-assisted-mptcp-03.pdf 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]
> Envoyé : mardi 18 avril 2017 17:39
> À : philip.eardley@bt.com
> Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
> 
> Hi Phil, all,
> 
> I have a clarifying question about dual proxy work.
> 
> Does the dual proxy solution have the ability to support native MPTCP at
> the client and server, or is the assumption that the solution forces the
> two proxies to become part of a connection regardless of whether the
> client and server are MPTCP enabled?
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:17 AM, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > During the MPTCP meeting in Chicago we did several hums about potential
> MPTCP proxy work. Our interpretation of these hums is that we should do a
> consensus call for the following work:
> > --
> > MPTCP is now seeing widespread deployment in networks to bond together
> two accesses, such as fixed and mobile broadband, by using two MPTCP
> proxies, one in the home gateway or Customer Premises Equipment and one in
> the network. The WG develops a solution where the proxies are both under
> the control of the operator and where it is assumed that they are not on
> the default path. The solution is based on using the payload of an MPTCP
> packet to transfer a signalling message between the proxies. It is
> believed the solution will not require changes to RFC6824bis. The solution
> may require a means of configuring set-up information in the proxies,
> which would be done in coordination with other IETF WGs such as DHC. The
> WG does not develop a mechanism for the two proxies to discover each
> other.
> > --
> > Please say whether you support, or don’t support, such work – so we can
> see if there’s consensus for it.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp