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

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mon, 08 May 2017 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 16680127333 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 CA4GT53bE0ih for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D238112894A for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B4E229C302 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 May 2017 07:09:06 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b204so67452213oii.1 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 May 2017 15:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5OOOokxtP6jVA1o0lD5S9zqLPYV86Fb9jI4QkhLa9Ba3bPC7nD HbUeKaP45gxOA8Srg276iU1/qDz58w==
X-Received: by 10.157.17.29 with SMTP id g29mr14172136ote.86.1494281345285; Mon, 08 May 2017 15:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.4.55 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d4ef6fbf-4111-b688-f3a6-07435f63effe@isi.edu>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51CDF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <9a803d8c-0c2a-9b5c-cd2a-fb4ce23ea3bd@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E52977@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <78A398AB-57BC-4CB2-BEE6-46704FA6E849@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E52E56@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <e96adf18-f116-f424-9067-74b38ced6eee@isi.edu> <4EDA1D3F-9041-40D3-8530-A38D05278AFD@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E539A3@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <e9bd13e1-908f-deea-f128-e232526015a4@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5B470@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7c585e73-8349-7dfe-9656-86dd15b09ecd@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5E00F@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <d4ef6fbf-4111-b688-f3a6-07435f63effe@isi.edu>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:09:04 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249yfyPEbbu5qRfGNC5jwRSJO3mVnmx0rVFbAEMzzJRu1SzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249yfyPEbbu5qRfGNC5jwRSJO3mVnmx0rVFbAEMzzJRu1SzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141dfb0c7ca28054f0a7c52
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/PiM0HlEtH4AnJk-WpgiZldM0-QI>
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: Mon, 08 May 2017 22:09:12 -0000

I think this is a valid point for discussion and it's good to see people
are generally fine to explore proxy for mptcp in general with a certain
conditions.

It seems to me that the option #2 in slide 12 of the chair slide (SOCKS
type approach) can fulfill this criteria. Because it looks like a
conventional proxy approach to me. The downside would be 0-RTT won't be
possible with this. It will be at least 1-RTT.

BTW, I guess there is one mistake in the slide. I think in option #2, the
SYN will be sent to Home Gateway with Proxy, not to other TCP endpoint.
--
Yoshi


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>; wrote:

> Med,
>
> There are two possibilities, as I already stated:
>
>     a) this is a conventional proxy, which is fine with me
>
>     b) this is a split-TCP proxy, which is out of scope IMO for this
> group and I do not support
>
> It's not feasible to endorse this work while letting this issue "float".
>
> The current doc is fairly clear on being (b).
>
> I have made my position clear and given the appropriate ADs a heads-up.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>