Re: [multipathtcp] Questions on

Olivier Bonaventure <> Fri, 11 November 2016 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EE51294CE for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:05:06 -0800 (PST)
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 dcT864RQMkWF for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:05:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556CD129A67 for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (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 04FD267DA17; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:04:56 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 04FD267DA17
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=selucl; t=1478876697; bh=0c2I7oT11RIbPLEByvMSRQn1NPBVTosSwC4IEo6EjoI=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=hewhkeyHC2N9sOnYFWBXg6ctfBr8ZraI7YZewZKniBHYJAv84gGqflUNAoJaHwCrl RdDq1VBzCjVUELsKAlJS0DsegEizTW4SLK9Q7V0civnbypt/F1PLN1iqvGgM+NU+qK P0yuSqW2VQMVigK4NszmhMzdV5QtoFCT2wk7FmlA=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at smtp-4
References: <>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:04:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 04FD267DA17.A73E9
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Questions on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:05:07 -0000


Let me complement some of the answers provided by Med

> If I get it right, on path means that you guarantee the first subflow
> goes through the proxy – what happens if it doesn’t?

yes, the underlying network guarantees this. Otherwise, there will be a 
fallback to regular TCP.

> what benefit does having this extra on-path (implicit mode) mechanism
> bring? (I know there’s been some discussion on this, is there a summary
> of the conclusion?)

The main benefit that network operator see with an on-path mechanism is 
that the addresses that are used by the clients are visible to the 
servers. This simplifies operations since addresses do not change inside 
the network. If the operator uses Netflow/IPFix, needs to perform LI, or 
debug problems, he sees packets with the correct source and destination