Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@nokia.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 15FA312961B for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-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 7zxOZUceHPu4 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (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 7E0FB128874 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 1481DFDC7B1AF; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:17:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u9JFHZtc023418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:17:35 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u9JFHYle004038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:17:35 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.176]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:17:34 +0200
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Thread-Index: AQHSKLyB5UNJQfueOkOQCZciJSJaMaCvPmIggAApyoCAAH4vgA==
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:17:33 +0000
Message-ID: <B45B1904-20C6-41A5-B5DB-F69AB1D75242@nokia.com>
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D945B7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <428609FE-DE79-45CD-B668-EF95F409B593@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D94DFB@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BC6170D1-2CB9-4192-8FEB-5C4D030B520F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BC6170D1-2CB9-4192-8FEB-5C4D030B520F@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1206A796DFA27A4484DF407249A79F1D@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/93ttwzgotXnMC-oq0urGbIWkc64>
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 15:17:41 -0000

I don’t expect changes to the base spec. AT least not with the current view of the solution/implementations.

On 19/10/2016, 11:45, "multipathtcp on behalf of Alan Ford" <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of alan.ford@gmail.com> wrote:

    Do you guys expect any impact on the base protocol from this work?
    
    Regards,
    Alan
    
    > On 19 Oct 2016, at 06:28, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Mirja, 
    > 
    > I'm for these two cases to be included:
    > * Case 1 is the mandatory piece to have.
    > * Case 2 solves the problem for no TCP traffic while leveraging on the same extensions that are used for case 1.  
    > 
    > I do fully agree that case 2 requires inter-area/WG coordination. 
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > Med
    > 
    >> -----Message d'origine-----
    >> De : Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch]
    >> Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2016 17:46
    >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
    >> Cc : Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE); philip.eardley@bt.com;
    >> multipathtcp@ietf.org
    >> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
    >> 
    >> Hi Med, hi all,
    >> 
    >> 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
    >> 
    >> 2) you tunnel other traffic over MPTCP
    >> 
    >> Case two is using TCP as a tunneling mechanism. This is discussed in
    >> several working groups for different purposes and is not very straight-
    >> forward in a lot of cases. Such an approach definitely needs coordination
    >> and transport as well as tunnel expertise.
    >> 
    >> Which case are you talking about? While Phil’s proposal sounded rather
    >> like case 1, your proposal sounds very much like case 2.
    >> 
    >> Mirja
    >> 
    >> 
    >>> Am 18.10.2016 um 07:52 schrieb mohamed.boucadair@orange.com:
    >>> 
    >>> Hi Wim,
    >>> 
    >>> Yes, this can be main stream.
    >>> 
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> Med
    >>> 
    >>> De : Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE) [mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com]
    >>> Envoyé : lundi 17 octobre 2016 23:22
    >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; philip.eardley@bt.com;
    >> multipathtcp@ietf.org
    >>> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
    >>> 
    >>> Sorry for the late reply, but more in-line
    >>> 
    >>> From: multipathtcp <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
    >> "mohamed. boucadair" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
    >>> Date: Friday, 7 October 2016 at 09:08
    >>> To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>om>,
    >> "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
    >>> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
    >>> 
    >>> Hi Phil,
    >>> 
    >>> Please see inline.
    >>> 
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> Med
    >>> 
    >>> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
    >> philip.eardley@bt.com
    >>> Envoyé : lundi 8 août 2016 11:50
    >>> À : multipathtcp@ietf.org
    >>> Objet : [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
    >>> 
    >>> I had thought a potential charter item could be something on the lines
    >> of:
    >>> <Experimental Extensions to the MPTCP protocol to enable an MPTCP-aware
    >> middlebox to act as an MPTCP proxy for an end host, which runs TCP. One or
    >> both end hosts may be MPTCP-unaware, and the MPTCP proxy(s) is (are) not
    >> necessarily on the default routing path(s). The working group will also
    >> detail, in an Informational document, the use cases /deployment scenarios
    >> and the operational considerations.>
    >>> 
    >>> [Med] I would like to see the charter includes the following; “The
    >> working group will also edit Network-Assisted Multipath provisioning
    >> documents. In particular, the WG will specify DHCP options and RADIUS
    >> attributes for MPTCP.”
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> WH> I am fine with this, but why do we state experimental extensions?
    >> Why is this not main stream?
    >>> However, if I get the discussion right, this is not quite right.
    >>> * assume a controlled environment (to avoid a problem where the message
    >> reaches the ‘wrong’ proxy) (IETF usually prefers generally applicable
    >> protocols)
    >>> * assume some (?additional) ‘header swapping’ protocol and a new
    >> signalling protocol (not an mptcp extension – so probably in INTAREA WG’s
    >> remit)
    >>> [Med] IMHO, it is not odd to document in the mptcp wg how a Network-
    >> Assisted MPTCP solution can also be applicable to other protocols (UDP in
    >> particular). This work can be done jointly/closely with other WGs. The
    >> important point is whether there is enough interest from the mptpcp WG
    >> members to work on this.
    >>> WH> indeed is to specify the means in MPTCP WG and other WG can be
    >> consulted to review the work. If you split it out it becomes less
    >> efficient from a protocol perspective.
    >>> If the above is roughly right, then I think some extra work is needed
    >> before we can get a clear charter item. Can some of the work that isn’t
    >> mptcp extensions be cleanly separated out? Can you be clear what
    >> deployment assumptions are being made (and preferably reduce them, so
    >> there is wider applicability). Personally I’d also find it very helpful if
    >> the plain/transparent ‘merged’ draft could try and follow the guidance
    >> about protocol models in RFC4101 (personally I found the plain mode doc
    >> difficult to understand).
    >>> 
    >>> Thanks
    >>> phil
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> multipathtcp mailing list
    >>> multipathtcp@ietf.org
    >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > multipathtcp mailing list
    > multipathtcp@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
    
    _______________________________________________
    multipathtcp mailing list
    multipathtcp@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp