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

<> Wed, 19 April 2017 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4843A131529 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udDbG-8MBa6F for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80704126CD8 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:23:21 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:23:24 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:23:23 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:23:23 +0100
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNY1jXzvDFKRxmRsHBM53IcbgAZ8zuAABZp5nA=
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:23:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:23:29 -0000


During the discussion in Chicago, we put up a slide about 'assumptions & criteria' (for solutions) - one of which is 
>>Don’t interfere with normal MPTCP (both endpoints MPTCP enabled)

[slide 11 of ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies] [] 
Sent: 18 April 2017 16:39
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,TUD1 R <>
Subject: 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?


> On Apr 18, 2017, at 4:17 AM, 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.