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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 154FA12869B for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cI9VIp_7I1Xo for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8FA1127599 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.68]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9C3C5C0650; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:15:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.61]) by opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 57788400A9; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:15:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b91c:ea2c:ac8a:7462%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:15:17 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Philip Eardley <philip.eardley@bt.com>
CC: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNYFYN3Pf6Ey0Kw29UUSw2QvQCSLSEAAABdPSA=
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:15:16 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51D3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <3F6DAF4F-87AD-411E-96A6-4FB52FF83F6D@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F6DAF4F-87AD-411E-96A6-4FB52FF83F6D@netapp.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/R5a5wWXPeqUGT-prY0Dw2ZYmX8M>
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:15:20 -0000

Lars, 

I don't see any technical argument in your message. 

Is it respectful for people to cite April 1 in a serous technical discussion?

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> Eggert, Lars
> Envoyé : vendredi 21 avril 2017 08:02
> À : Philip Eardley
> Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
> 
> On 2017-4-18, at 10:17, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> > Please say whether you support, or don’t support, such work – so we can
> see if there’s consensus for it.
> 
> I don't support doing proxy work in MPTCP.
> 
> Sure, you can probably take a sledgehammer to MPTCP and make it roughly
> conform to what operators believe they need here (cf. RFC1925 clause 3).
> But I believe that MPTCP is fundamentally the wrong starting point for
> solutions to this problem space.
> 
> Lars