Re: [multipathtcp] Two proxy scenario (network proxy off path)

Olivier Bonaventure <> Wed, 29 March 2017 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609601272E1 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.32
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.32 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SuGmuwSmWgb4 for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0492A12025C for <>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4936867DD63; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:38:41 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 4936867DD63
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=selucl; t=1490809121; bh=aygrYjYJPWF4rJInxzBZdG0bmo/Su3zxnY8zvRDncI8=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BLRnF5eIpjmIp3eiMTZIP/zbHsvQ0t1om40EuECVdz2j6Dl1C7Rv7878eEQcHQTwq DDG5UvVMMN3G6LjGcPja4N8NgfMtJ9g5RuziO/jyEHmW8poqaC5r4KusYNBno5biTI GpXLzyoyeH924PZEpMQ8Eet4K3eZIXK3XiKEYaqA=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-4
References: <> <> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E4303A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:38:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 4936867DD63.A2145
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Two proxy scenario (network proxy off path)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:38:51 -0000

On 29/03/17 18:38, wrote:
> << The point I am trying to make is that a 0-RTT proxying solution is not something that the MPTCP working-group should be in charge of. There are other places in the IETF that are probably more appropriate for this.>>
> If possible the WG can discuss a solution for a while without worrying about this - at least to get to a protocol model that we like. then we (or rather Mirja & IESG) can worry about Whether this needs a re-charter, another wg involved etc

I agree that there could be other use cases than MPTCP and that the main 
objective is to have 0-RTT proxying solution. Several members of this 
group have worked on MPTCP proxies and there is sufficient demand from 
various network operators to justify a specification that ensures that 
different implementations are interoperable. Given the experience that 
we have in this group with MPTCP proxies, it would make sense to discuss 
here first. There are already deployments and operators expect to have 
interoperablt solutions soon.