Re: [multipathtcp] A question related to MPTCP control overhead

[Sayee Kompalli Chakravartula <[e-mail]>]

Olivier,
I got the point, and thanks for the clarification. I were under the impression that existence of MPTCP connection implies that existence of at least one subflow, which clearly cannot be true always as your corner case illustrates.

Sayee




-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Bonaventure [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 3:21 PM
To: Sayee Kompalli Chakravartula; Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] A question related to MPTCP control overhead

Sayee,

>> If the connection is closed using the FIN bit: Let us represent a SN as x_{i,j} where the subscript i denotes the type of sequence space (SSN or DSN) and the subscript j gives the subflow ID. Let x_{DSN, SF2} be the DSN of the last byte transmitted before FIN is sent on SF2 and that x_{DSN, SF1} be the last DSN mapped to SF1 before the DSS Option is disabled by the sender. In this context we need to consider two possibilities: x_{DSN, SF1} < x_{DSN, SF2} and x_{DSN, SF1} >= x_{DSN, SF2}. Now consider the case x_{DSN, SF1} < x_{DSN, SF2}. When a data byte is received on SF1 that is not covered by DSN we know where to place that data byte with respect to the data byte whose DSN is x_{DSN, SF1} using subflow sequence number of the data byte. Because, eventually, data bytes need to be ordered based on DSN before releasing to the application layer we still need to decide where to place this data byte at the connection-level with respect to x_{DSN, SF2}, and this is where the protocol will run into ambiguity: whether to place the data byte before or after x_{DSN, SF2}. This will lead to protocol dead-lock. Next, we consider the possibility x_{DSN, SF1} >= x_{DSN, SF2}. Here we do not have the ambiguity present in the previous context. The received data byte on SF1 will have to be placed to the right of both x_{DSN, SF1} as well as x_{DSN, SF2} and the actual placement on SF1 will be determined by the SSN of the data byte.
>>
>> The above analysis helps us to decide how and when DSS Option can be disabled. After sending the FIN on SF2, continue sending the DSS option on SF1 until the largest DSN used on SF1 is at least as large as x_{DSN, SF2} and the state variable NUM_SUBFLOW has transitioned to 1, and then disable the DSS Option. To describe the receiver behaviour, the receiver expects to continue to receive data bytes covered with DS mapping on SF1 until the largest DSN mapped to SF1 is at least as large as x_{DSN, SF2}. After then, starting with the first received byte that is not covered with DSN, the receiver will understand that the sender has disabled DS mapping on SF1.
>>
>> At this point, I like to believe that defining a new Option Subtype or utilizing an unused bit in the DSS option will be fruitful.
>>
>> Except in some specific scenarios, like a data center, I don't think a device can know in advance if second interface becomes available during the connection. So if the users goes with TCP then he is at disadvantage because he cannot utilize additional interfaces when they become available. If he opens MPTCP connection hoping that new interfaces may become available in the future, until then the connection has to incur control overhead due to redundant DSS Option.
>>
>> As a first-cut solution I think we should allow a MPTCP connection not to use the DSS option until it opens the second subflow. To keep things simple, we may say that once DSS Option is enabled it will be enforced until the MPTCP connection is closed.
>
> On smartphones a solution would need to support break-before-make to 
> be useful. This means that we cannot terminate the subflow with a FIN 
> before deciding to switch to the utilisation of DSS. This fact, 
> coupled with middleboxes that can transparently add/remove data from 
> the bytestream make the problem difficult to solve
>
>
>
> <<Sayee>> Can you please elaborate on this scenario, as I do not seems to get what you were implying?


A very annoying corner case is the following one :

A smartphone creates an MPTCP connection over WiFi. The three-way-handshake is done correctly. After a few seconds, the smartphone sends some data but it has moved out of reach of the WiFi network and it does not receive acknowledgements for this data. From the information exchanged over the WiFi, the smartphone cannot know whether the data has been received by the server or not.

The smartphone then opens a subflow over the LTE interface. Once the subflow is established, it can be used to send data with the DSS option. 
Note that during the three-way handshake for the initial subflow, the client and the server have agreed on the initial sequence numbers for the two directions of the transfer. This means that when the first data arrives on the LTE subflow with a DSS option, the server can determine whether this is the first data of the bytestream or other data and then it would need to wait for the first data before delivering it to its application.

If you remove the DSS on the initial subflow, then I do not see any way for the server to cope correctly with this scenario. Note that sequence number randomisation affects the sequence numbers that the smartphones and the server see.


Olivier