[multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior
Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Thu, 22 June 2017 04:04 UTC
Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 857FA120721 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 9Ja3fC5iTsbS for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8793D126BF3 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (mail-oi0-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AFC8278720 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:04:51 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c189so2450384oia.2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyq+qB3VKvjw+esYCrigtwRkORZxCKyCVQlB2QmrW08xQz/9W8U 9ZVGM2JA7JDhGr5Qqx++8ZG5ChGlMQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.97.196 with SMTP id v187mr264151oib.216.1498104290192; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.41.220 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:04:49 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249ydwQgPr2t6n9dNJ=xa5ubXDB2meYdU6OK7ATNvrpCGA_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249ydwQgPr2t6n9dNJ=xa5ubXDB2meYdU6OK7ATNvrpCGA_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d39380db94d0552849658"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/9VbHAddxFjHt4fQkFZHDAHbw7Gs>
Subject: [multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 04:04:57 -0000
Hi, In the Chicago meeting, I remember Joseph mentioned an issue on linux which close all subflows that use an IP address when rem addr for it has been received. (page 13 in https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-mptcp- sessa-channel-bonding-of-low-rate-links-using-mptcp-for- airborne-flight-research-00.pdf) As far as I read 6824bis draft, this behavior seems not to be recommended. But, do we need more specific guidance here? Thanks, -- Yoshi
- [multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior Christoph Paasch
- Re: [multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior Christoph Paasch
- Re: [multipathtcp] q about remove addr behavior Yoshifumi Nishida