Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper
William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Wed, 04 November 2009 20:10 UTC
Return-Path: <wherrin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C203A67F0 for <multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:10:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJiStiIABsei for <multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8123A67AD for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 25so978326eya.51 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:10:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9vpjZK5m1v5i3/R5MZCnYtC4Go0A9xKhi/OqxRIUzZQ=; b=v/gOVf3MfSCS1E8zOmAAk4gSNSHHXu412wWNwnJekSZcWNyZ/m8cP10/uLvdofdRvz Km1QLuqG8PB3hFuKipS2rZbLuDAtxRUwML7tqb8x7AZBzF2c+8FmrMSPeFvbRKcqnxe2 va74IB9/P8RLDiBmZ/HPwAnk/v6+Mz2GgJhnM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=PeKGr49DHRpZxD5P4oIotjBbaT94J56dc+ZuPKFmzN+bn2NxYHn0eS1iUzUVUFGwDL QqIM0NRrESdx/zW8QsfMerQCkyQ8D5iL+L5p3w2PSY6JY2AM4jpxzL21Sam56fsHPU4+ cJbn7qqUo4YszZxSLpzXNO1oo7WPLFOluT690=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: wherrin@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.87.131 with SMTP id y3mr677020wee.9.1257365448966; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:10:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4AF1750D.5020307@it.uc3m.es>
References: <EF751D1A-E7F6-425A-AA8D-D41113A8C1B6@gmail.com> <84a612dd0910271756q39ed39c2h9143a0237047d8c7@mail.gmail.com> <9F695526-37CD-4D41-869C-3D59BD9D5913@cisco.com> <80049D27-B7FA-4AF3-A200-2BDEB5AB8E25@cs.ucl.ac.uk> <4AE87562.6010804@it.uc3m.es> <4AF0A372.1030802@isi.edu> <84a612dd0911031350q669f850by4fd09711daeb6aa8@mail.gmail.com> <4AF1324F.4010902@it.uc3m.es> <4AF15ADF.7010809@gmail.com> <4AF1750D.5020307@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:10:48 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6dda756d0727af73
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0911041210h3f744d05x4aabeac2ac05948c@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:10:32 -0000
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > Scott Brim escribió: >>> Mark Handley escribió: >>> >>>> We definitely intend MP-TCP to work for both v4 and v6. More >>>> debatable is whether we want to permit mixed v4/v6 connections (some >>>> v4 subflows, some v6, in the same connection). I'm unconvinced. >> >> IMHO the issue is in the API. > > The MPTCP extended API. In this case i understnad we should distinguish > whether the connection was open as an IPv6 connection or as an IPv4 > connection. > If it was open as an IPv6 connection, i think there is no problem, since > IPv4 addresses can be represented as IPv4-mapped addresses, so the API > allows to handle both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the same way (i.e. as IPv6 > addresses). some degree of care should be taken not to form incompatible > address pairs with one IPv4 and one IPv6 address. > If it was opened as an IPv4 connection, then i thin more thought is needed. Hi Marcelo, We could just set up the extended API to be protocol agnostic from the start, yes? We don't routinely tell it which protocol to use; it tells us which protocols it has used. Which at some point in the distant future may be IPv12 and we'd like the then-legacy apps to still behave in a reasonable fashion. Main difference would be passing textual representations through the API instead of protocol-specific structures. On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote: > But isn't the real question whether the protocol will support NAT > traversals? > > If yes, it would be a pity to make the IPv6 solution more complex than > needed just to support NAT traversals. Hi Rémi , If subflows are basically TCP streams joined to the larger TCP stream then we can't expect the connection's acceptor to make new connections to the initiator. That'll blow up with any firewall, not just NAT. That was a hard lesson with active-mode FTP too. I would hope we don't have to learn it again. If we assume that only the initiator will start new subflows then client-side NAT (the initiator's end) only really raises an authentication-by-source-address issue. Which is pretty weak authentication to begin with so I'd hate to see it derail compatibility with client-side NAT. That only leaves server-side NAT. Unless someone identifies a really elegant solution for handling legacy server-side NAT, my view is: detect and fail. Include the destination address in a TCP option when you first initiate the connection and if the server sees a different address than you do (because it passed through a NAT that wasn't MPTCP-compatible enough to change the option too) then MPTCP is disabled for that connection. As for folks who want to run MPTCP in a server-side NAT environment, that's the NAT box's problem and the system administrator's configuration problem, not ours. > Can't we expect that before MPTCP is agreed on and deployed, the vast > majority of multihomed hosts will have IPv6? No. Making any prediction about IPv6 deployment beyond "slow" would be unwise. That most especially includes predictions about whether any significant portion of IPv6 users will employ NAT. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
- [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Bryan Ford
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Tatiana Polishchuk
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Costin Raiciu
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Fred Baker
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Dino Farinacci
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Mark Handley
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Dino Farinacci
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Mark Handley
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Scott Brim
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Scott Brim
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Fred Baker
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Dino Farinacci
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Scott Brim
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Costin Raiciu
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Marc Blanchet
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper philip.eardley
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Costin Raiciu
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Dino Farinacci
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Sébastien Barré
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Joe Touch
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Mark Handley
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Scott Brim
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Scott Brim
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Michael Tüxen
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper Rémi Després
- Re: [multipathtcp] Interesting paper William Herrin