Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Sun, 06 November 2016 21:12 UTC
Return-Path: <olivier.bonaventure@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 925D1129855 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:12:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 gQStRoWjuOAZ for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.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 52D60129851 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [87.66.241.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE63767DB83; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 22:12:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be AE63767DB83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1478466726; bh=vnEVqXCkXmuDD7jo/rdqF13yID1Ehu8XFNnmw55NkNA=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=iuBR0yHC53Eubeacd2Zzwz/HDrWe6bxGts9wUCmD4c4nMHw7uP172+WkXQbOFGBG3 5RcJoztbgYX36YTw1uX8ALbTLHLPol9AAIiY5r4YLHgEBJmEAW9yKzQyGu8MoH1PrW VLtDDap2hKRnRXYP7lr3skGeTQ5IUJ3h6hebRXuw=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at smtp-2
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.com> <8bed05c5-9f6f-04aa-8aa8-690aa3ce30f4@uclouvain.be> <CAO249ydpdtR53VBniDczSt4zj_kk32c2W_FoZKs2XED0Jzk7Jw@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D9577B@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <22907_1476946228_58086934_22907_5464_1_a7bca8d2-7656-4ff0-9f01-cf307f017148@OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <57543A7A-1542-4C60-A5D3-E1658354BE5A@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <73a1c0dd64a843a5baa645d960c82886@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <b8bfd5c6-21eb-4c4f-879a-851c3a71792a@OPEXCLILM31.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <56CE164A-9A62-4B57-9CFF-33DBD45BA8B2@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D9CA84@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <85D52AE4-FE5F-4977-8927-6BDB72614D07@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DAAA88@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D2630820-7586-4361-A626-3278F22C319C@gmail.com> <B7D8197F-D833-41BB-A4A4-D6F31A3B8993@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <4fceb7e5-a0b0-d4d2-8669-fad0df59095d@uclouvain.be>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 22:12:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B7D8197F-D833-41BB-A4A4-D6F31A3B8993@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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: AE63767DB83.A603B
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WAKGyiViSp7aVEcJK2UpWR8Mvao>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
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: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 21:12:16 -0000
Mirja, > > first, I agree with Alan that such a signal does not need to/should not be part of the MPTCP protocol. Adding the signal inside MPTCP reduces the end-to-end delay compared with a pure application layer solution likes SOCKS and this is really important. > MPTCP (as TCP is) is an end2end protocol. If you have one (or two) proxies in the middle, you split up the connection into multiple new ‚end2end‘ connections. If you need additional signaling information on one of the new connections, that a question for a high-layer protocol that uses MPTCP (which is what you do, when you propose it to be part of the payload). SOCKS has been tried in some deployments with MPTCP and it increases the end-to-end delay given the additional rtt that are required. > > Second, I’m not a big fan of the a two side proxy scenario where one side simply assumes that the destination is not MPTCP-capable. This does not support MPTCP deployment but hinders native MPTCP deployment (basically ensuring that these proxies stay forever in the network and add additional complexity even if all endpoints are MPTCP-enabled one day). I guess a proxy should always first forward the MCTCP handshake and only if the reply does not support MPTCP, then termite the connection, reply the initiator accordingly and setup a new TCP to the destination. This might cause additional delay but it provides a big benefit if the destination is MPTCP-capable and supports native deployment. It's clear that the MCP should send the MP_CAPABLE option in the SYN towards the destination server and fallback to TCP is this fails. Since there are some middleboxes that continue to silently drop the MP_CAPABLE option, the MCP should be able to maintain a list of destination servers where it had to fallback to regular TCP (e.g. after n retransmissions of the SYN with MP_CAPABLE as suggested in RFC6824) and no attempt to use MPTCP for these destinations. This cache should be reset on a regular basis to probe again the destination servers. Olivier
- [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item philip.eardley
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Robert Skog
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … christian.jacquenet
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Robert Skog
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … philip.eardley
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Christoph Paasch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Christoph Paasch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Christoph Paasch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … Alan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter … mohamed.boucadair