Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Wed, 19 October 2016 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 2493012947E for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] 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 Xp7svEmDWb39 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D51C3129513 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0A0D930C; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:36:25 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9xc4g5EKOM3J; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:36:24 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [192.168.178.33] (p5DEC2E3C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.236.46.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D728ED9304; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:36:24 +0200 (MEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <8bed05c5-9f6f-04aa-8aa8-690aa3ce30f4@uclouvain.be>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:36:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D5421B70-5A2B-43C9-966E-632FE5A452EB@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D945B7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <428609FE-DE79-45CD-B668-EF95F409B593@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <8bed05c5-9f6f-04aa-8aa8-690aa3ce30f4@uclouvain.be>
To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/7rEm6F1Gzx_9Ofoz_NbxOmHweuQ>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter 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: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:36:32 -0000

Hi Olivier,

I think both cases are valid and interesting for the IETF. The questions is where to address them. As I said case 1 could be in scope for MPTCP or actually is probably already with the current charter. 

The other question however is, what does the IETF need to do here. I believe most of this use case can just be done right now without any further actions of the IETF.

I know there is a proposal for an MPTCP extension to support this use case. I would recommend to separate this out from the operational consideration because specifying the extension is clearly in scope for the working group.

My 2c.
Mirja

 
> Am 19.10.2016 um 21:42 schrieb Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>be>:
> 
> Mirja,
>> 
>> there are two cases to distinguish here:
>> 
>> 1) you have one or two MPTCP proxies that terminate the TCP connection and open a new MPTCP connection
> 
> There is a very clear demand for this type of solution and there are various implementations that are available or are being developped. Several deployments exist and there is a large demand for this type of services. It would be silly for the IETF to ignore this use case after having spent years to specify the Multipath TCP protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> Olivier