Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath TCP Address advertisement 4/5 - Priorities

Fabien Duchêne <fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be> Mon, 14 November 2016 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be>
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 17A051296E7 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:00:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uclouvain.be
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 YWzONFOUYHDu for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4431296D2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.134.81] (dhcp-8651.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.134.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: duchenef@smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C00067DA61 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:00:07 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 5C00067DA61
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1479106808; bh=BWZOdMWJbuFv7N9UrHoAun4XAuK+3Mu5winrD1Mkk5U=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=QLzbzFPwNt/f2dqHjUfMZp3ZkGd6XRhhXYl3iEZcKg/N9Ybt5AgNxrJ8ku3KjnlJ+ 2Ww3kZz5kAm3kaq0oOkUgqsVaWer1gkH/Sk/ZsELwb6CO3WYpA2EZ/4s7gZgBuQ0Bs AgfJNKN3sIcmi0Q4y6DXNey7uCrVxsjTWomUPmzQ=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-3
To: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
References: <581F2334.8010403@uclouvain.be> <20161113075145.GH4269@Chimay.local> <826bf9ab-e9b7-a89b-28de-676deece8a4b@uclouvain.be> <D0FA35FF-B17F-4F7F-92E1-D9FBB6E735A7@gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabien_Duch=c3=aane?= <fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <f84a7a7b-32f2-4a2f-958b-791aa2dcc272@uclouvain.be>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:00:02 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D0FA35FF-B17F-4F7F-92E1-D9FBB6E735A7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 5C00067DA61.ABDA2
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/Tx_X7nobtZqbsteWqG8M48k_mPM>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath TCP Address advertisement 4/5 - Priorities
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 14 Nov 2016 07:00:23 -0000

Hello,


On 11/14/2016 03:14 PM, Alan Ford wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Personally I think only (b) makes sense at the subflow level, 
> everything else is far too complex to signal in a few bits. Whether it 
> is of use to people in the real world, however, I don’t know, however!
>
This is what the draft is proposing, however I agree that other 
interpretation is possible (a precentage split or a QoS like I said), so 
I could make this clearer in the draft.
Even if by doing that, we are almost creating a priority scheduler, but 
everyone agrees with that that's ok.

Fabien