Re: [multipathtcp] q about off-path proxy (explicit mode)

Olivier Bonaventure <> Tue, 28 March 2017 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24BC5129457 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
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 mA3pcl5zPOVv for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE15129400 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A18767DA94; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:21:53 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 8A18767DA94
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=selucl; t=1490689313; bh=M1F6WtoZqiJ580dslsju5vM/pxuHQ+hFwQRvSYcwyvc=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=rXSJiAxbHckyY6+Q3DP+q70vqlLfWgN+3ey/d4e7pLumbBTJEVg+07RE3VqmFqISJ ct+JaRCWg3JbP/AryZ7P9dx6WQpxOPHYOMVjc9R33H7f6W1xlLd3LVxrFaQQD12Lrs u6k+MX1KhGDa2Q4Du5zwcUTOmjFfvjiZQHR23Ztg=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-6
References: <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E41157@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <>,
Cc: multipathtcp <>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:21:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 8A18767DA94.A3C25
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] q about off-path proxy (explicit mode)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:22:11 -0000

> Thanks for the response. I have been thinking that it would be better if
> we can classify our use cases so that we can have clear vision for what
> to solve. Things I may want to classify is:
>    a) solutions requires changes in only MPTCP or in TCP general
>    b) solutions requires proxies to be on-path or solutions that work
> with off-path proxy.
> We can think about the solutions for a) if we think it's necessary, but
> I am thinking that the proper venue for the discussion might not be this
> WG.
> I think the approach Med mentioned requires the proxy to be on-path, so
> I would like to classify it as an on-path solution.
> I had some hard time to comprehend the proxy drafts and I think one
> reason for that is it somehow mixes up on-path and off-path cases. I
> start thinking separating docs for on-path and off-path solutions might
> be helpful.

We combined the drafts based on the suggestions from the Berlin meeting. 
There might be other ways to describe the solution. Based on the results 
of the discussion in Chicago, we can try to think about a series of 
drafts that might be easier to read because each draft would be focussed 
on a smaller subset

Let's discuss this on the list after the meeting since I will only 
attend remotely