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

<Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.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 8E65A13151E for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 7AQE0qmvYAjA for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (outmail110.swisscom.com [193.222.81.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3FF813151B for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.swisscom.com; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:00:14 +0200
From: <Markus.Brunner3@swisscom.com>
To: <philip.eardley@bt.com>, <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AQHSuNI11jXzvDFKRxmRsHBM53Icbg==
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:00:12 +0000
Message-ID: <6DA61EDB-0341-4FFA-8034-CA12F890E205@swisscom.com>
Accept-Language: de-CH, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [138.190.134.7]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6DA61EDB03414FFA8034CA12F890E205swisscomcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/8ADWYGfpX9I4MzIa188QhwKzgFA>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Apr 2017 06:00:21 -0000

Hi,

We support that work and have put forward some time ago what the use case and problems are we would like to see solved. I’m surprised this discussion starts over again.

And yes proxy might be a misleading term for some with its legacy co-notations, so feel free to propose an appropriate term (I thought some of the drafts have used different terminology).

Marcus

Von: multipathtcp <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org>; im Auftrag von "philip.eardley@bt.com"; <philip.eardley@bt.com>;
Datum: Dienstag, 18. April 2017 um 10:17
An: "multipathtcp@ietf.org"; <multipathtcp@ietf.org>;
Betreff: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

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.
Thanks
Phil & Yoshi

Hums during the meeting:

•         Should the MPTCP WG do any MPTCP proxy work, or do none – about 2:1 or 3:1 in favour of doing work

•         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #1 in slide 12? Strongly more yes than no

•         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #2 in slide 12? more no than yes

•         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #3 in slide 12? Weak & roughly equal
Ref: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-mptcp-sessa-chairs-01.pdf
We believe the work does not require an update to the MPTCP WG charter.