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

Robert Skog <robert.skog@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.skog@ericsson.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 044C4131508 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com
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 Gq_dxfzDVPyC for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E799A129449 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-7cfff70000005492-65-58f7034e24f1
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.27]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E4.66.21650.E4307F85; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:27:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.145) by oa.msg.ericsson.com (153.88.183.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.339.0; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:27:25 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ericsson-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=n6Ly0R3ZyT8CzZcom1a4UG2+EuPUGHuD0pb5ZNbitoY=; b=GZFjB/zwkJ2fWo5TkZaoSrj/+3rkezgXs3ubX7CbPH9At1qTqTdSs2J5+kjtQPrj0TGlbDflpvnx9Xpl7mJ7MYLAsB+HdKruUpsq7OM6/gBT7OreBBAXLwt2GXaaFZP/poIF7QfC1G5+HUpNrtzmlh58uWyKMhYg7HC/RNv7028=
Received: from HE1PR07MB1258.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.164.51.144) by HE1PR07MB1259.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.164.51.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1047.6; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:27:24 +0000
Received: from HE1PR07MB1258.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.51.144]) by HE1PR07MB1258.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.51.144]) with mapi id 15.01.1047.008; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:27:24 +0000
From: Robert Skog <robert.skog@ericsson.com>
To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNY1jXzvDFKRxmRsHBM53IcbgAuaokA
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:27:24 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB125809F486A89F80A383544B8B180@HE1PR07MB1258.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: bt.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;bt.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.176.1.84]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR07MB1259; 7:Pe6CuYGG4DRqqJPhSZgHhJsEEWw8NF1W9kwh/Y7qv4+IWa92ZdqImWpljBozDIZz3yL/vkgCv60RJHeFtFi1OwVTMPl5YWSgqVJ/9clvTGND9k4o1IjIYnfhLVDpyysfN+h0ewmjdz6Zo5gitH6qZVoFJ94jVNxpN7Xk2iRLRLVM9bVO+YFkQAJmZtSqedg2vRFUwR21Pu1zV65fb6d2bKW/PY/E35PdxdpzJPX6jE1QKFh1jyUNqyWAJF5TZWj8EXwJrP2XicNIV+UjNuvcbCabLP1pARhJRp+/sjbx8ebFiggf2xq3qVjv+RatP2CW+gatZ0DkjtgOzJs6A4XiHg==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1ea5cb24-e643-4ac1-5c4e-08d486ed24a4
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075); SRVR:HE1PR07MB1259;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR07MB125945ECB527C207A19840338B180@HE1PR07MB1259.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(146908506813832)(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:HE1PR07MB1259; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR07MB1259;
x-forefront-prvs: 028256169F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39850400002)(39400400002)(39410400002)(39450400003)(790700001)(3846002)(7696004)(6116002)(102836003)(53546009)(25786009)(38730400002)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(6506006)(55016002)(6436002)(3660700001)(3280700002)(5660300001)(606005)(77096006)(99286003)(6306002)(54896002)(2906002)(236005)(9686003)(33656002)(81166006)(2501003)(189998001)(8936002)(7736002)(229853002)(7906003)(2950100002)(86362001)(53936002)(66066001)(8676002)(74316002)(122556002)(2900100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB1259; H:HE1PR07MB1258.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HE1PR07MB125809F486A89F80A383544B8B180HE1PR07MB1258eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Apr 2017 06:27:24.0810 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB1259
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrDKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7tG4g8/cIg51PmCw+r77OZrFs7QpG ByaPti+TmTyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx8OdGtoK3IRXfetqZGhj3enUxcnJICJhI TFz7iL2LkYtDSGA9o8S13uvMEM4JRonZa08xgjgsAr3MEt+Xv4Mqm8Yk0Xx+OwuEc4xR4tSp eSwgw9gEdCQ2LlzPCmKLCKRJ7FnyB2gWB4ewgKXExjmOEGEriZaJz9khbCOJY1MeM4HYLAKq EltfNYGN4RWIkVg19yRYjZBAiMS0HUvBbE6BUInOWwfBxjMKiEl8P7UGrJdZQFzi1pP5TBD/ CEgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8ryJ2MAu2MElNfNrJAJBQkXnU3sIEkJAR6mCWOLrgE1eErsannBwtE op9RYvKLDlaIRLbEu/23GSHsGIkNZz5BFV1kklj6qQ2qW0ai/+wMVojEBFaJJ7Nvgh0lLCAl cfdKJyOELSPx4s5eVojD8yXWzNjKOIFRfRaSP2YhSc0Ch4egxMmZT1gg4joSC3Z/YoOwtSWW LXzNDGOfOfCYCVl8ASP7KkbR4tTi4tx0IyO91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzANHRwy2+rHYwHnzse YhTgYFTi4X0g/S1CiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjvug9fI4R4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOwKInz Ouy7ECEkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpgnPunz2ZDi17LsTBJ49tuM7dFl88+PeftnF7+1Vs9 /nQx5N2dlPEwIN7RQWYL36O5Sjo6wR4uYYbGa9hEjla8Z3x84O/TFZvNRP4ppky9HzhBp2aP yVWuk0lrf2i3HSi8JZ+n5bbO7vYJ7du/WXne9t/8YrzKOedo1rzo31PtP67l2BV79HjueiWW 4oxEQy3mouJEAF2BbmI/AwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/gh8hS82ZgQXlW_ztZYgAEmuRpfQ>
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:27:33 -0000

Hi!
I fully support the work on MPTCP-Proxy.

Cheers,
/Robert

From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of philip.eardley@bt.com
Sent: den 18 april 2017 10:17
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

Hi,
During the MPTCP meeting in Chicago we did several hums about potential MPTCP proxy work. Our interpretation of these hums is that we should do a consensus call for the following work:
--
MPTCP is now seeing widespread deployment in networks to bond together two accesses, such as fixed and mobile broadband, by using two MPTCP proxies, one in the home gateway or Customer Premises Equipment and one in the network. The WG develops a solution where the proxies are both under the control of the operator and where it is assumed that they are not on the default path. The solution is based on using the payload of an MPTCP packet to transfer a signalling message between the proxies. It is believed the solution will not require changes to RFC6824bis. The solution may require a means of configuring set-up information in the proxies, which would be done in coordination with other IETF WGs such as DHC. The WG does not develop a mechanism for the two proxies to discover each other.
--
Please say whether you support, or don't support, such work - so we can see if there's consensus for it.
Thanks
Phil & Yoshi

Hums during the meeting:

*         Should the MPTCP WG do any MPTCP proxy work, or do none - about 2:1 or 3:1 in favour of doing work

*         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #1 in slide 12? Strongly more yes than no

*         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #2 in slide 12? more no than yes

*         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #3 in slide 12? Weak & roughly equal
Ref: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-mptcp-sessa-chairs-01.pdf
We believe the work does not require an update to the MPTCP WG charter.