Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath deployment and fate sharing

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

From: Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath deployment and fate sharing
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:36:24 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

 > > Fate sharing does not solve (neither its absence make worse) the 
 > > issue of a remote address X not being uniquely associated with a
 > > peer. For example, with fate sharing and normal TCP there's the issue
 > > of an application connected to a peer application on remote address X
 > > not being able to connect to the same peer when issuing another
 > > connect().
 > >
 > > This is different from the issue of an application expecting a
 > > connection to be up if and only if the remote address X is still in use
 > > by its peer. That one is influenced by our decision regarding fate-sharing.
 > 
 > I agree fate sharing doesn't solve the issue, but its absence definitely
 > does make it "worse", where "worse" is considered (by me) to be "not
 > what existing TCP does".

In my understanding, when mptcp starts a subflow, it uses a token which was used
in the initial negotiation for the first connection. If we check this token
properly, we can at least distinguish whether the peer for the subflow is the right 
one or not. So, in my feeling, mptcp does not make the situation worse much. 

--
Yoshifumi Nishida
[e-mail]