Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 08:57 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 2AAD7129A25 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:57:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.385
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 kyJPU2P3ob7I for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:57:00 -0800 (PST)
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 0DAF2129A4A for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id DB90D1000DE; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:56:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.19]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5A47040067; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:56:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b08d:5b75:e92c:a45f%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:56:57 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com" <Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com>, "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "alan.ford@gmail.com" <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item
Thread-Index: AdI7N1nf0aKADf/wTiuUhe6Yz4SJ8QATzjrQAKu92wAAALmrAAA3YR2AAACCspA=
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:56:57 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DB3E06@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <0898853c01b245aa8b3c45c9da478d6a@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <286B053B-7E5E-4FD8-A767-DAC55E8D42C9@gmail.com> <1479105129326.45083@bt.com> <0B758A41-338E-4E3B-B4D2-53DB8DF71610@swisscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <0B758A41-338E-4E3B-B4D2-53DB8DF71610@swisscom.com>
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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DB3E06OPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/3o-_WO6zPYG_M3WpR5iGgdUurBE>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item
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, 15 Nov 2016 08:57:03 -0000
Hi Markus, all, I’m on the same page that non-tcp traffic should be considered in scope. At least, the UDP case should be investigated. I remember there was interest in BA meeting about the UDP part (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/minutes/minutes-95-mptcp) An option I see is to consider advancing the use of MPTCP to convey UDP flows in a separate EXPERIMENTAL specification that will be cross-reviewed with other WGs (intarea, tsvwg). Having that base specification will help having interoperable implementations that will be used to carry experimentations. Those experiments will help to determine whether the proposed solution is complex/simple, viable/non-viable, failed/successful, etc. Let’s give it a try. Cheers, Med De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com Envoyé : mardi 15 novembre 2016 08:58 À : philip.eardley@bt.com; alan.ford@gmail.com Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item Phil, If you feel it would take too long and to be too complex to achieve in a reasonable timeframe, we are ok with excluding non-tcp traffic, however, for our total solution we do requires also non-tcp traffic to be sent over multiple paths. We could argue that we can use a different mechanisms specifically for UDP and other protocols, but it would be nice to have as single MPTCP-based solution. (my gut feeling is that we would need to replicate a lot of MPTCP scheduling features into a new mechanism). Marcus Von: multipathtcp <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org>> im Auftrag von "philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>" <philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com>> Datum: Montag, 14. November 2016 um 07:32 An: "alan.ford@gmail.com<mailto:alan.ford@gmail.com>" <alan.ford@gmail.com<mailto:alan.ford@gmail.com>> Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>" <multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>> Betreff: Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item i think we should move beyond "exploring whether it would be useful". i'd like us to assess proposed solutions. i think we should say this is what we're doing - at the moment we've had quite a lot of discussion about one proposal. we should give the chance for other proposals, and make the discussion more structured (what are the assessment criteria). i also think we should explicitly exclude non-tcp traffic (i think non-tcp traffic is too big a topic for our WG) phil ________________________________ From: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com<mailto:alan.ford@gmail.com>> Sent: 14 November 2016 06:11 To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item I think this work item is achievable by simply removing references to “at least one end” from the existing charter item on the proxy. So the item would now read: Finally, the working group will explore whether an MPTCP-aware middlebox would be useful. For example, potentially helping MPTCP’s incremental deployment by allowing only one end host to be MPTCP-enabled and the middlebox acts as an MPTCP proxy for the other end host, which runs TCP; and potentially helping some mobility scenarios, where the middle box acts as an anchor between two MPTCP-enabled hosts. Alternatively, neither end host could be MPTCP-enabled but a pair of proxies could work together to bring MPTCP benefits to such connections. The working group will detail what real problems an MPTCP-enabled middlebox might solve, how it would impact the Multipath TCP architecture (RFC6182), what proxy approach might be justified as compared against alternative solutions to the problems, and the likely feasibility of solving the technical and security issues. In some ways, the two ended proxy work could even be seen as an extension of the previous operational experience work within this WG. Regards, Alan On 10 Nov 2016, at 19:17, philip.eardley@bt.com<mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com> wrote: Hi, Perhaps this is speaking too soon, but it looks like the very active discussion is reaching some common understanding? We’re trying to work out what a work item might look like, so would like to understand what assumptions we would make, eg about the scenario, & what common agreements we’d assume & restrictions on how the solution works. This seems important to frame work by WG. If possible we’d like discussion on these points to avoid getting into the fine details of one particular existing proposal. What we’d appreciate is a summary of what the assumptions /understandings are about: • The scenario (for instance: the MPTCP-enabled host knows the address of the proxy (eg through configuration); and it knows the address of the ‘legacy’ host it wants to communicate with) • If any impact is already envisaged on the current MPTCP protocol’s fallback behaviour and coping with middleboxes • If we can agree that the solution is based on a new MPTCP option • If any impact is already envisaged on the current MPTCP protocol’s semantics (other than the new option) eg in terms of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6824#section-4 • If any impact is already envisaged on TCP’s semantics, or any mods are needed, or assumptions about its behaviour, etc • If any impact is already envisaged on other existing transport protocol’s semantics (presuming people still would like non-TCP in scope?) • Anything else that you think is needed in order to frame the work item It may be clearer to do this for the two use cases (single-ended proxy, ie where only one host is MPTCP-enabled; and double-ended proxy, ie where neither host is MPTCP-enabled). This may seem like a long list, but most of the answers can be “none” – we’ll end up with just a short paragraph or a few bullets in the charter. We’d also have to work out interactions with non-MPTCP WGs, but Mirja and IESG will probably want the main input on this. Thanks Phil & Yoshi _______________________________________________ multipathtcp mailing list multipathtcp@ietf.org<mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
- [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work… philip.eardley
- [multipathtcp] Single-ended Multipath TCP Proxy w… Olivier Bonaventure
- [multipathtcp] Dual-ended Multipath TCP Proxy wor… Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] Single-ended Multipath TCP Pro… Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] Single-ended Multipath TCP Pro… Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] Single-ended Multipath TCP Pro… Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … philip.eardley
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … philip.eardley
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … N.Leymann
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … David Allan I
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Markus.Brunner3
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy … Robert Skog