Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 65C29129478 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 JcHps9cVC1LF for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor34.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0260B1293F4 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) by opfednr26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 68D9B20D55; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:28:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.24]) by opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 39AD3120059; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:28:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9044:c5ee:4dd2:4f16%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:28:04 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Thread-Index: AQHSKVbGTNxXppvZj0+vwLr7Jo/4gaCvPmIg
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:28:02 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D94DFB@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D945B7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <428609FE-DE79-45CD-B668-EF95F409B593@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <428609FE-DE79-45CD-B668-EF95F409B593@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/CVIfFeouuXbdnwwkFw_XzMHkKws>
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 05:28:09 -0000

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