Re: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy

Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com> Sun, 31 July 2016 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rao.shoaib@oracle.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 7231512D0FE for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-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 asWC3sV6UAeF for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) (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 6E23212D0D8 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u6VL2kkN001698 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:02:47 GMT
Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6VL2jkS017297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:02:46 GMT
Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6VL2hET003446 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:02:45 GMT
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (/73.162.15.142) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:02:43 -0700
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
References: <b779dd12f1bb412c96c800eddaaf0247@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <9cafc779-502e-cc7f-676c-f6659e207c81@uclouvain.be>
From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <3100ff74-0c7d-1815-03a1-aa4cec36d1e4@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:02:38 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9cafc779-502e-cc7f-676c-f6659e207c81@uclouvain.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/-pQxmudxFzQl3f-ulgiIUgKCkHs>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:02:52 -0000


On 07/27/2016 01:43 AM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote:
> Phil,
>
>> So far this discussion has made me a bit confused. Let me ask a specific
>> question:-
>>
>> Why do we need both transparent and plain mode? If these are addressing
>> different usage scenarios, please explain them (in a paragraph?)
>
> The two modes address different deployment scenarios.
>
> In the transparent mode, the HAG resides on the path to/from the 
> client. There are many ways in current networks to ensure that the HAG 
> is on the path of the clients that it serves. The transparent mode 
> requires one option to distinguish between end-to-end MPTCP 
> connections (directly established by the client using an MPTCP stack) 
> and proxied connections. During IETF96, the authors of plain-mode and 
> transparent-mode agreed that the transparent-mode draft would use an 
> emply plain mode option to indicate that a connection has been proxied.
Why is it necessary to know that the connection has been proxied ?
>
> In the plain-mode, the HAG does not need to be on the path to/from the 
> client. The plain-mode option is used to signal the original 
> source/destination address of the connection depending on the usage.
Since we seem to be only considering TCP, will the protocol field be 
removed from the draft ?

Shoaib
>
>
>
>
> Olivier
>
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp