Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 08 November 2016 06:38 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 97E081294A5 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:38:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 ksjtm5NJuVTC for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8EA12941D for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7C59D18C6B8; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:37:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.18]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 567294C081; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:37:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cba:56d0:a732:ef5a%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:37:57 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, "Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be" <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Thread-Index: AQHSOQ97nemdljzUmEGiGID3gGUCC6DOobBQ
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 06:37:56 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009DADEAE@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.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> <4fceb7e5-a0b0-d4d2-8669-fad0df59095d@uclouvain.be> <C0212561-63DA-4578-9795-928B51F2A71B@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <c93d9d6b-f46b-2b11-da6b-a308159ef7c0@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <c93d9d6b-f46b-2b11-da6b-a308159ef7c0@isi.edu>
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
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.11.8.54517
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/WmJNo-4N9pjn4eDHVYJL38-4JtU>
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
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 06:38:00 -0000

Hi Joe, 

It is encouraging to consider using EDO, but the current approach we adopted for the MP_CONVERT option have the same failure risk as for introducing MPTCP at the scale of the Internet. 

Using EDO and/or defining MP_CONVERT as a TCP option exacerbates the failure vectors. Below a table that summarizes the failures that will be experienced for the MP_CONVERT case as a function if the design approach: 

   +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
   |                  | MP_CONVERT| MP_CONVERT| MP_CONVERT| MP_CONVERT |
   |                  |   MPTCP   |    TCP    |   MPTCP   | TCP Option |
   |                  |   Option  |   Option  |  Option + |   + EDO    |
   |                  |           |           |    EDO    |            |
   +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
   | MPTCP-unfriendly |    FAIL   |    FAIL   |    FAIL   |    FAIL    |
   |             path |           |           |           |            |
   +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
   |   EDO-unfriendly |     NA    |     NA    |    FAIL   |    FAIL    |
   |             path |           |           |           |            |
   +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
   | "Unknown TCP opt |     NA    |    FAIL   |     NA    |    FAIL    |
   |  ion"-unfriendly |           |           |           |            |
   |             path |           |           |           |            |
   +------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joe
> Touch
> Envoyé : lundi 7 novembre 2016 16:56
> À : Mirja Kühlewind; Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
> Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/7/2016 7:42 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> > Do you mean the MCP forwards the original SYN (and basically does
> nothing if the server supports MPTCP) or does the MCP terminate the TCP
> connection and start a new TCP connection with MP_CAPABLE towards the
> server?
> >
> > Mirja
> If you're OK with needing to terminate a failed option exchange, then it
> might be possible to use EDO in the SYN in its current form.
> 
> TCPM decided to prohibit that in the general case, but I could ask them
> to allow that in very limited environments (but it could NEVER be
> default on).
> 
> Note - the use cases I'm hearing appear to assume very strong knowledge
> about the other end of the connection and the path. In that case, you
> probably can skip most - if not all - of the 'negotiation' options and
> just start using them during the SYN too. However, if you say "no, we
> need to confirm", then you would not be able to use EDO inside the SYN.
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp