Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 05:32 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 2199612EACB for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 0Z57BrenJFXU for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B450E126DED for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0CA63C06A6; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:32:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.57]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D25271A005F; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:32:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::787e:db0c:23c4:71b3%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:32:36 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]" <matthew.t.sargent@nasa.gov>
CC: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNYFYN3Pf6Ey0Kw29UUSw2QvQAZ8zuAAB4TboAAD/kHAAAWfiXA
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:32:36 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E50F4A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <02572A11-A7D5-49D2-A31A-61B575613DF3@nasa.gov> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5041F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <90A6EE89-D089-46C1-980F-9DE5DE2B07B7@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <90A6EE89-D089-46C1-980F-9DE5DE2B07B7@nasa.gov>
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/Zt7xb0LGemnxG3zMViunR_YDjx4>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:32:40 -0000

Hi Matt, 

What I meant by "native MPTCP connections" is that the CPE won't proxy a SYN that contains MP_CPABALE received from an MPTCP-capable client. That is, the CPE won't modify the destination IP address to the one of the network-located proxy. That SYN+MP_CPABALE will be received and handled directly by the remote server.   

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]
> [mailto:matthew.t.sargent@nasa.gov]
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 avril 2017 15:38
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : philip.eardley@bt.com; multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
> 
> Hi Med,
> 
> > On Apr 19, 2017, at 2:00 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > Yes, I confirm.
> >
> > * Native MPTCP connections can be established directly without involving
> a proxy.
> > * If the client is not MPTCP-capable but the server is MPTCP-capable,
> the communication leg between the proxy and that server will be placed
> using MPTCP.
> >
> 
> I am not sure I understand how you maintain native MPTCP connections in
> the dual proxy case.
> 
> I am assuming a network that is set up like you have on slide 10. 1
> address on the client, 1 address on the server, multiple paths are
> "hidden" by the MCP's.
> 
> Do you mean to claim that installing MPTCP on the client and server will
> result in an MPTCP connection that "works" in the sense that it will
> contain multiple subflows to use the available paths in the network? How
> would this work without additional signaling?
> 
> Sorry if I am missing something obvious here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt