Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

[Robert Skog <[e-mail]>]

Hi all!
We have seen solid interest from several operators on Hybrid Access solutions based on MPTCP as the base technology.
In the light of increased UDP traffic we also see demand for the same type of solution also catering for UDP.
Therefore, I believe the MPTCP WG should continue the work around the "plain mode" to have a solution for UDP and update the charter (if it is needed for the continuation).

Cheers,
/Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: multipathtcp [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: den 20 oktober 2016 08:15
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

Hi Yoshi, 

The discussion I had with many operators is that they would like to see both TCP and UDP addressed with the ** same solution**. This is why we came up with the proposal to leverage MPTCP for other protocols (UDP, mainly).

So, what I would ideally like to see in the mptcp WG proposed charter is (with "X" being MPTCP):

> 1: Protocol X proxy:
>     It speaks protocol X on behalf of communicating endpoints .
>     From one end's point of view, it looks as if the other end speaks 
> protocol X.

And

> 3:  Protocol X-Y / Protocol Y-X gateway
>      Convert protocol X into protocol Y, or convert protocol Y into 
> protocol X for protocol connectivity/compatibility, etc.

I know Olivier/Stefano have a better name to denote both these cases. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Yoshifumi Nishida [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : 
> mercredi 19 octobre 2016 22:57 À : [e-mail] Cc 
> : Mirja Kühlewind; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [e-mail] 
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Olivier Bonaventure 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Mirja,
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > There is a very clear demand for this type of solution and there are
> various
> > implementations that are available or are being developped. Several 
> > deployments exist and there is a large demand for this type of services.
> It
> > would be silly for the IETF to ignore this use case after having 
> > spent
> years
> > to specify the Multipath TCP protocol.
> 
> I also think we should not ignore the use case.
> But, I am somehow thinking that we might want to clarify the 
> terminologies a bit more so that we can have more clear focus.
> 
> I might be wrong, but these words give me the following impressions.
> 
> 1: Protocol X proxy:
>     It speaks protocol X on behalf of communicating endpoints .
>     From one end's point of view, it looks as if the other end speaks 
> protocol X.
> 
> 2: Tunneling over protocol X
>      Protocol X carries other protocol Y packets (by using
> encapsulation)  All info in protocol Y (headers, etc) will be 
> preserved.
> 
> 3:  Protocol X-Y / Protocol Y-X gateway
>      Convert protocol X into protocol Y, or convert protocol Y into 
> protocol X for protocol connectivity/compatibility, etc.
>      Some info in the original protocol might be lost due to the 
> conversion.
> 
> If I follow these impressions, it seems that some proposals are close 
> to 3. (again, I might be wrong) I might want to check if we want to 
> clarify this point in the charter or leave it ambiguous.
> I am just wondering if we might need to clarify the terminology or 
> adding some texts to avoid miscommunications.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi
_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp