[multipathtcp] q about on-path proxy

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Wed, 22 March 2017 09:03 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 4C616129691 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:59 -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 hKxFfkg3RW6x for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:57 -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 8DE00129689 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-f179.google.com (mail-ot0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 192A829C5C5 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:03:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-ot0-f179.google.com with SMTP id i1so166454951ota.3 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3vtnYA0rac1WjO+AQdxlqMXKB+r+kZibO6mE4KkS/nq+l+kzjBByNF1ZcDAbKLh8d9jOmxiyNAkSjqAQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.61.202 with SMTP id l68mr23520793otc.242.1490173433555; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.41.137 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:03:53 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249ydsuoAUn0y6yo62OM8mdp_AfyS1cA+patgQ84ata5piXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249ydsuoAUn0y6yo62OM8mdp_AfyS1cA+patgQ84ata5piXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11492f9a293749054b4e0a57
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/BWL3xn667nYQhLqjvcLyW9LjT68>
Subject: [multipathtcp] q about on-path proxy
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, 22 Mar 2017 09:03:59 -0000

Hello,

I am trying to understand on-path proxy scenarios.
(BTW, I'm referring draft-nam-mptcp-deployment-considerations-01
and draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode-10)

In case of on-path proxy (implicit mode),the dest of the primary subflow
will be the receiver. It's not very clear to me how MCP intercepts the
packets in this subflow.
The MCP splits the connection between two nodes and send forged packets to
the sender?

Also, in the two proxy scenario, does the downstream MCP have to be
on-path?

Thanks,
--
Yoshi