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

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Tue, 26 July 2016 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.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 1996C12DE31 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 NZB0giAatnnQ for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DCB112DB59 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E07HT02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.197.160) by EVMED04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:07:57 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by E07HT02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.197.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:07:57 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:07:53 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:07:53 +0100
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <philip.eardley@bt.com>, <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy
Thread-Index: AdHjZ4nHkoHVP9v7Rwqgdt1DLC/zlgD5RCMA
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:07:52 +0000
Message-ID: <e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <b779dd12f1bb412c96c800eddaaf0247@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <b779dd12f1bb412c96c800eddaaf0247@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.242]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fbrew09926dag03bdomain1sy_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/0ycYRYcn2z3pwFxQrK1yCeuNwmo>
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: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:40:41 -0000

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?)  (this is important as a charter item would start by talking about the issue it was tackling - and then may mention some starting points or assumptions about the solution)
Plain mode involves a signalling protocol (extension to mptcp - I assume this would be in scope of a prospective charter); then subsequently a way of handling the actual traffic (UDP seems out of scope; TCP I'm not sure to what extent this would be in scope). Do I understand this right? Comments?
Thanks
phil

From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of philip.eardley@bt.com
Sent: 21 July 2016 17:13
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy

We started the discussion yesterday on a potential new work item on "two-ended proxy scenario" - where there's an MPTCP proxy in both the CPE and an aggregation point (for instance). The current charter is that one end host is MPTCP.

If I can try and summarise the brief discussion yesterday (plus some side discussions) (please correct my inaccuracies):

-          there are now deployments & products with an MPTCP proxy at each end, plus planned Broadband Forum work (WT-348 is about to be made public, with subsequent work to follow). So IETF work is timely (eg help allow an operator to buy CPE from one vendor and aggregation gateway from another vendor).

-          However, some people object to going beyond the current charter's "one-ended proxy scenario" (since the "two-ended proxy" discourages deployment of MPTCP to all the end hosts, which is the ultimate goal)

-          There are two proposals (transparent & plain mode: draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode-08 & draft-peirens-mptcp-transparent-00). Are these addressing different use cases, or do we need to choose between them? would a (potential) charter item be to standardise existing draft(s), or to solve a problem /scenario?

-          I think there was mention (by Wim??) that there's a third proposal - how does this fit in, or did I get it wrong?

-          One aspect of the plain mode draft is to allow transport of UDP traffic as well as TCP traffic. I think this is a proposal that should be discussed separately  - for instance it needs INT-area expertise.

I think it would be good to have more discussion before attempting to write some potential charter text (and then seeing if there's consensus for it).

Thanks!
Philip Eardley
Research and Innovation
This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you.
We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no: 1800000