[multipathtcp] discussions on draft-boucadair-mptcp-symmetric-02
Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mon, 24 August 2015 05:13 UTC
Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B6E1B2F00 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.915
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 mi69TPFDtSfN for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC8CF1B2EFF for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (mail-ob0-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89DD9278099 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:13:54 +0900 (JST)
Received: by obbwr7 with SMTP id wr7so103797068obb.2 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.39.194 with SMTP id r2mr20139622obk.20.1440393232992; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.195.136 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:13:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO249ycC6=7n+dwFoJokieq8Snu5qMmngNJzw9mm-39Wd2x0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1d8d6fd52c9051e07aec2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/dTp6sMu5Q_1F1XqvEiURYHucivs>
Subject: [multipathtcp] discussions on draft-boucadair-mptcp-symmetric-02
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 05:13:58 -0000
Hello, There were several discussions on draft-boucadair-mptcp-symmetric-02.txt I am thinking that we're setting down on these two points. 1: Changing ADD_ADDR formats (replacing IPVer field by Flags field) seems to be a reasonable idea. 2: How to use the flags field seems to need more discussions as this is scarce resource. If this is acceptable for everyone, we can integrate 1: into 6824bis and continue discussions on the draft for the usage of the flags, etc. Please share if you have some thoughts on this. I guess this might be one topic for the interim. Thanks, -- Yoshi
- [multipathtcp] discussions on draft-boucadair-mpt… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [multipathtcp] discussions on draft-boucadair… Olivier Bonaventure