Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <> Mon, 17 October 2016 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACEE1294EA for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVNRHs_Ehclj for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F8F129471 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 88C866FB9908; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:22:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( []) by (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u9HLM4Jr022810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:22:05 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (GMO) with ESMTP id u9HLM3eG032038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:22:04 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:22:03 +0200
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Thread-Index: AQHSKLyB5UNJQfueOkOQCZciJSJaMQ==
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:22:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CCD1A9870F3C47758B0E5232965E7E22nokiacom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:22:09 -0000

Sorry for the late reply, but more in-line

From: multipathtcp <> on behalf of "mohamed. boucadair" <>
Date: Friday, 7 October 2016 at 09:08
To: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

Hi Phil,

Please see inline.


De : multipathtcp [] De la part de
Envoyé : lundi 8 août 2016 11:50
À :
Objet : [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

I had thought a potential charter item could be something on the lines of:

<Experimental Extensions to the MPTCP protocol to enable an MPTCP-aware middlebox to act as an MPTCP proxy for an end host, which runs TCP. One or both end hosts may be MPTCP-unaware, and the MPTCP proxy(s) is (are) not necessarily on the default routing path(s). The working group will also detail, in an Informational document, the use cases /deployment scenarios and the operational considerations.>

[Med] I would like to see the charter includes the following; “The working group will also edit Network-Assisted Multipath provisioning documents. In particular, the WG will specify DHCP options and RADIUS attributes for MPTCP.”

WH> I am fine with this, but why do we state experimental extensions? Why is this not main stream?
However, if I get the discussion right, this is not quite right.
* assume a controlled environment (to avoid a problem where the message reaches the ‘wrong’ proxy) (IETF usually prefers generally applicable protocols)
* assume some (?additional) ‘header swapping’ protocol and a new signalling protocol (not an mptcp extension – so probably in INTAREA WG’s remit)
[Med] IMHO, it is not odd to document in the mptcp wg how a Network-Assisted MPTCP solution can also be applicable to other protocols (UDP in particular). This work can be done jointly/closely with other WGs. The important point is whether there is enough interest from the mptpcp WG members to work on this.
WH> indeed is to specify the means in MPTCP WG and other WG can be consulted to review the work. If you split it out it becomes less efficient from a protocol perspective.
If the above is roughly right, then I think some extra work is needed before we can get a clear charter item. Can some of the work that isn’t mptcp extensions be cleanly separated out? Can you be clear what deployment assumptions are being made (and preferably reduce them, so there is wider applicability). Personally I’d also find it very helpful if the plain/transparent ‘merged’ draft could try and follow the guidance about protocol models in RFC4101 (personally I found the plain mode doc difficult to understand).