Re: [multipathtcp] q about off-path proxy (explicit mode)

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Tue, 28 March 2017 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 3B8BB1271DF for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 VsOgFrI8ZMRl for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3C4512947F for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-f176.google.com (mail-ot0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF81C29C919 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:59:53 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-ot0-f176.google.com with SMTP id y88so62304559ota.2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1RPCh08+oCw8wYq3XsnT8UcR532ouVxPNJn8xOUI6SP/UXJxGtd7ISZN76J+g/vsOhSCALQxuSQKqm1A==
X-Received: by 10.157.5.139 with SMTP id 11mr2362090otd.43.1490741992598; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.41.137 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E41E30@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CAO249yc3MOaPjBsmYqsZgW3AaxKmpA_wr2TxvgLZLwP6rf9dwA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E41157@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAO249ydXsYv7TDXcfAF0gXxrDQocT_jqt2kRC5VVjFrik4CrqA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E41571@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAO249ydRS9de35P12y_mp3wvtF4UPy__GCPBR3+uuZHfDwQKzw@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E41E30@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:59:52 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249yfJwVjEYwGLQhSwvv7yq8PxV6a6-_h0w1YvSMvJs5+MXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249yfJwVjEYwGLQhSwvv7yq8PxV6a6-_h0w1YvSMvJs5+MXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137281cebc717054bd26a22
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/0LNrJhwtGIU2XDbmpSXtL2dRyFE>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] q about off-path proxy (explicit mode)
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:00:03 -0000

Hi Med,

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:20 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> Hi Yoshi,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Yoshifumi Nishida [mailto:nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 27 mars 2017 16:18
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> *Cc :* Yoshifumi Nishida; multipathtcp
> *Objet :* Re: [multipathtcp] q about off-path proxy (explicit mode)
>
>
>
> Hi Med,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:32 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>
> Re-,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Yoshifumi Nishida [mailto:nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 27 mars 2017 13:21
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> *Cc :* Yoshifumi Nishida; multipathtcp
> *Objet :* Re: [multipathtcp] q about off-path proxy (explicit mode)
>
>
>
> Hi Olivier, Med,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response. I have been thinking that it would be better if
> we can classify our use cases so that we can have clear vision for what to
> solve. Things I may want to classify is:
>
>    a) solutions requires changes in only MPTCP or in TCP general
>
>    b) solutions requires proxies to be on-path or solutions that work with
> off-path proxy.
>
>
>
> We can think about the solutions for a) if we think it's necessary, but I
> am thinking that the proper venue for the discussion might not be this WG.
>
>
>
> I think the approach Med mentioned requires the proxy to be on-path, so I
> would like to classify it as an on-path solution.
>
> [Med] I’m not sure to follow you here. What I described is aligned with
> the target dual proxy case (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-nam-mptcp-deployment-considerations-01#section-4.2): the first
> proxy is embedded on a CPE. There is no technical problem there to
> intercept the traffic to be proxyied given that the CPE sees all the
> traffic.
>
>
>
> Well, this classification might be a bit different from the way described
> in the draft.
>
> What I meant for off-path (explicit) case is the cases where the proxy is
> not on the path between client and server. No more and no less.
>
> [Med] I see. As you can read in the plain mode draft, implicit/explicit
> thing is drawn from the perspective of the MCP located at the network
> provider side.
>

I think I understand the perspective.
I am thinking that if we don't combine explicit mode and off-path, it will
be less confusing (at least to me)
In my understanding, explicit mode can be used for off-path (probably for
single proxy case) and on-path (probably for 2 proxy case)
Implicit mode probably will be used for on-path case only.

--
Yoshi