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

"Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]" <> Tue, 18 April 2017 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B1712EBEA for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWvudbvmn1kP for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 606A212EBCD for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Comment: SPF check N/A for local connections - client-ip=;;;
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 37B71401337F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=letsgomars; t=1492530071; bh=Y5um1NvA1G4jB/RhwtJvWM1iyRYJ+ntAZhvRU2KmmhQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ClXpvEuhs2DFkB6wCmT8gxRQQgqOcawQDdc/eLILaoxXyR47VswwfUnzoFSiuV26a 6xZjRar4QM4OWrn4TvrgEViT3+sKOHjw169djam34Vb+N7X/d0HWMHqecbXLg+BFJi l+XGQZn8KwqqFdlMjVOrTWsEEGafOcyceyQtm9T+0OTbQXdIRyeRm0eRYcav2RTN6J cm0wC2XKFML/G4CtBJs635yAmFVgxZX2A/NIuUJMGcLfjQ+8EEeBDCF8tzDXOtJbL8 VHrFEXvmxFB92AQC9dDUIjlNymX3P7U94hbJDM4GUkso4c5ldZp+1W0PTqPZWEKeLR +WWN+ZL7etCBg==
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B71401337F; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:41:11 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id v3IFdZts005582; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:41:11 -0500
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 29wmfjgaa5-15; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:41:10 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:39:29 -0500
From: "Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]" <>
To: "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNY1jXzvDFKRxmRsHBM53IcbgAZ8zuA
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:39:29 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-18_13:, , signatures=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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:41:13 -0000

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.