Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Tue, 25 October 2016 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 DA5EB12947C for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] 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 DpwbqxRYnAph for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FEE21293D9 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7071AD930D; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:06:47 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 93tHwo2tox8q; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:06:47 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [10.2.117.87] (public-docking-etx-1365.ethz.ch [10.2.117.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28B17D9305; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:06:47 +0200 (MEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <22907_1476946228_58086934_22907_5464_1_a7bca8d2-7656-4ff0-9f01-cf307f017148@OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:06:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <57543A7A-1542-4C60-A5D3-E1658354BE5A@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D945B7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <428609FE-DE79-45CD-B668-EF95F409B593@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <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>
To: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/YaWCoYNehQWvsHXOdNYbRYHF1a4>
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, 25 Oct 2016 12:06:54 -0000

Hi all, hi Christian,

see below.

> Am 20.10.2016 um 08:50 schrieb christian.jacquenet@orange.com:
> 
> WG,
> 
> Let me second Med's recent replies to Yoshi, Mirja and Alan. 
> 
> I too believe the mptcp WG is the right placeholder to work on an MPTCP extension that can accommodate use cases which are currently being investigated, marketed and - yes - deployed (for some of them, with their procession of already-documented drawbacks (TCP-only communications) and flaws, like QoS-affecting signaling delays) by some operators.
> 
> These use cases mainly fall under the so-called hybrid access service offering umbrella, so that end-users can take advantage of various access network technologies for the sake of optimized resource usage, among other incentives.

I agree that these use case are interesting and work is needed here. See further below.

> 
> I also believe MPTCP is the right solution to address such use cases.

As I mention previously there are two very different deployment scenarios: a connection-terminating MPTCP proxy or a MPTCP tunnel solution. In general using TCP as a tunneling technology is challenging and has a broader scope than just MPTCP.


> As I already mentioned a while ago, working on an extension that can facilitate the establishment of MPTCP connections in a network-assisted fashion as we call it in the current Plain Transport Mode option draft will not hinder MPTCP massive adoption but rather encourage it.
> 
> I also know there are already prototype implementations of such extension that are currently being tested.
> 
> I therefore support the adoption of the MPTCP proxy charter item by the mptcp WG, as this work addresses very concrete and short term use cases that have been publicized by several operators. 
> 
> And I think that this WG should start working asap on the set of deliverables mentioned by Med in his recent response to Mirja: MPTCP extension specification, deployment scenarios and operational considerations and DHCP/RADIUS-based provisioning means.

An MPTCP extension specification is clearly in scope for MPTCP and can be done right now without a charter change. 

I’m not sure if deployment scenarios need to be documented (in an RFC). As you said above there are already prototype and some real deployments as well. Not sure why we need additional documentation here.

Operational consideration might or might not below in the MPTCP working group. However, there is the BANANA BoF in Seoul that will discuss hybrid-access services (and different approach to provide this service). Depending where this effort goes that might be a better home or some wg in intarea.

DHCP/RADIUS extension go into the DHC working group. They are charter to specify these kind of extensions and you can start this work there immediately.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t do this work; I’m just saying that MPTCP might not be the right group for all parts of this work. This is my recommendation as transport AD but I’m sure a rechartering discussion in the IESG would provide similar feedback.

Mirja



> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian.
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Envoyé : jeudi 20 octobre 2016 08:15
> À : Yoshifumi Nishida; Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
> Cc : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> 
> Hi Yoshi, 
> 
> The discussion I had with many operators is that they would like to see both TCP and UDP addressed with the ** same solution**. This is why we came up with the proposal to leverage MPTCP for other protocols (UDP, mainly).
> 
> So, what I would ideally like to see in the mptcp WG proposed charter is (with "X" being MPTCP):
> 
>> 1: Protocol X proxy:
>>    It speaks protocol X on behalf of communicating endpoints .
>>    From one end's point of view, it looks as if the other end speaks 
>> protocol X.
> 
> And
> 
>> 3:  Protocol X-Y / Protocol Y-X gateway
>>     Convert protocol X into protocol Y, or convert protocol Y into 
>> protocol X for protocol connectivity/compatibility, etc.
> 
> I know Olivier/Stefano have a better name to denote both these cases. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Yoshifumi Nishida [mailto:nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp] Envoyé : 
>> mercredi 19 octobre 2016 22:57 À : Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be Cc 
>> : Mirja Kühlewind; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; multipathtcp@ietf.org 
>> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Olivier Bonaventure 
>> <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> wrote:
>>> Mirja,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> there are two cases to distinguish here:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) you have one or two MPTCP proxies that terminate the TCP 
>>>> connection
>> and
>>>> open a new MPTCP connection
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is a very clear demand for this type of solution and there are
>> various
>>> implementations that are available or are being developped. Several 
>>> deployments exist and there is a large demand for this type of services.
>> It
>>> would be silly for the IETF to ignore this use case after having 
>>> spent
>> years
>>> to specify the Multipath TCP protocol.
>> 
>> I also think we should not ignore the use case.
>> But, I am somehow thinking that we might want to clarify the 
>> terminologies a bit more so that we can have more clear focus.
>> 
>> I might be wrong, but these words give me the following impressions.
>> 
>> 1: Protocol X proxy:
>>    It speaks protocol X on behalf of communicating endpoints .
>>    From one end's point of view, it looks as if the other end speaks 
>> protocol X.
>> 
>> 2: Tunneling over protocol X
>>     Protocol X carries other protocol Y packets (by using
>> encapsulation)  All info in protocol Y (headers, etc) will be 
>> preserved.
>> 
>> 3:  Protocol X-Y / Protocol Y-X gateway
>>     Convert protocol X into protocol Y, or convert protocol Y into 
>> protocol X for protocol connectivity/compatibility, etc.
>>     Some info in the original protocol might be lost due to the 
>> conversion.
>> 
>> If I follow these impressions, it seems that some proposals are close 
>> to 3. (again, I might be wrong) I might want to check if we want to 
>> clarify this point in the charter or leave it ambiguous.
>> I am just wondering if we might need to clarify the terminology or 
>> adding some texts to avoid miscommunications.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Yoshi
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp