Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Scott Brim escribió:
> marcelo bagnulo braun allegedly wrote on 11/04/2009 2:50 AM:
>   
>> Mark Handley escribió:
>>     
>>> 2009/11/3 Joe Touch <[e-mail]>:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> Interesting... the charter doesn't have IPv4 nor IPv6 in it.
>>>>> I assumed that we were chartered to work on both, don't we?
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> I thought all new protocols were *required* to address at least IPv6.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> We definitely intend MP-TCP to work for both v4 and v6.  More
>>> debatable is whether we want to permit mixed v4/v6 connections (some
>>> v4 subflows, some v6, in the same connection).  I'm unconvinced.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Do you expect any special difficulty on supporting this?
>> I mean, this would be useful for dual stack hosts.
>> If there is no special difficulty, i would go for that.
>>     
>
> IMHO the issue is in the API.
>
>   
ok, i am very very far from being an API expert

with that in mind

I understand that we have 2 cases: the current API (i.e. no MPTCP 
aware), there should be no problem, the usage of "locator" of another 
address family should remain transparent to the application, correct?

The MPTCP extended API. In this case i understnad we should distinguish 
whether the connection was open as an IPv6 connection or as an IPv4 
connection.
If it was open as an IPv6 connection, i think there is no problem, since 
IPv4 addresses can be represented as IPv4-mapped addresses, so the API 
allows to handle both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same way (i.e. as 
IPv6 addresses). some degree of care should be taken not to form 
incompatible address pairs with one IPv4 and one IPv6 address.
If it was opened as an IPv4 connection, then i thin more thought is needed.

Regards, marcelo