Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Wed, 19 April 2017 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
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 6869A127843 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 AewPge9KbvDz for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8421200DF for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id v3J26XuO029020; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:06:33 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9976CD7924; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:06:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id OmBSpOcMOBcm; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB171D78E4; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:06:40 +0200
Message-ID: <87a87db173.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AC4FC6D8-2E8D-4228-8F31-7C71CDF0227E@nokia.com>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <02572A11-A7D5-49D2-A31A-61B575613DF3@nasa.gov> <AC4FC6D8-2E8D-4228-8F31-7C71CDF0227E@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:06:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 58F6C629.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 58F6C629.004 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 58F6C629.004 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/L1i355-lJUv8yO1lJad7oGzVpyc>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
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, 19 Apr 2017 02:06:36 -0000

>> Does the dual proxy solution have the ability to support native MPTCP
>> at the client and server, or is the assumption that the solution forces
>> the two proxies to become part of a connection regardless of whether
>> the client and server are MPTCP enabled?

> If the client and server support mptcp the proxies should not end up in
> the path

Could you please explain how that happens?

-- Juliusz