Re: [multipathtcp] Increasing usage of MPTCP [was: Consensus call...]

Olivier Bonaventure <> Tue, 25 April 2017 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A4912F280 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HkL24vXSuPKK for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10C51131639 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbpobo.local (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A88FF67D9FB; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 A88FF67D9FB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=selucl; t=1493137213; bh=5bIqNC6vch4IvbDH8wWotCs3RLo0a++zcZdkTdcKGR4=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=w0HYH1WbuLn9P30MTdS5dGN+kv15gmUeNs1qvhZal72DOH0L+XXRi66Yww7f4mwJq 0xRdpOlFIlq6B7igQxw6jVHZW67Hr33P//xpdp17//YGRrRse6/40XtVneqpCE0HC3 QrDLZAD7saKZAU3/bj/cvTu9GN8HaLeajMb/vGSg=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-5
References: <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D65@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <AAA2913CE97A474D937BF3C760E855A7608BCB05@MAIL-MBX-02> <>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <>, SungHoon Seo <>
Cc: "" <>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:20:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: A88FF67D9FB.A610A
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Increasing usage of MPTCP [was: Consensus call...]
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, 25 Apr 2017 16:20:24 -0000


>> Use case with this proxy work may increase the usage of the MPTCP, since
>> most of the existing servers do not have MPTCP capability.
> It may also have the opposite effect -- to lock up MPTCP in the ghetto of
> proxy-to-proxy protocols, and destroy the (positive) perception of MPTCP
> as a suitable end-to-end protocol.

I disagree. Having MPTCP proxies provides incentives to deploy MPTCP on 
endhosts. This is clearly what we observe today with the wide deployment 
of MPTCP on Android smartphones in Korea. Without proxies (in this case 
SOCKS proxies, but they have drawbacks as discussed earlier) nobody 
would have considered this deployment.

> (IMHO, upstreaming MPTCP into the Linux kernel would do more for MPTCP
> deployment than anything that the IETF may do, but I guess that's somewhat
> off-topic for this discussion.)

I agree but there are already two major smartphone vendors that use the 
open-source Linux MPTCP code and have included in the Linux kernel 
version that they ship to their customers. This is an indication of the 
maturity of the solution and the benefits that users can obtain with 
MPTCP today.