Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP Interim September 10 - Meeting Notes
"Appanasamy, Palanivelan" <palanivelan.appanasamy@in.verizon.com> Fri, 11 September 2015 06:25 UTC
Return-Path: <palanivelan.appanasamy@in.verizon.com>
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 E1BAA1A21A1 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 03MR0g_BNloE for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eesmtp01.ap.verizon.com (eesmtp01.ap.verizon.com [202.130.139.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26DFD1A1A36 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Appanasamy, Palanivelan" <palanivelan.appanasamy@in.verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,510,1437408000"; d="scan'208";a="56400208"
Received: from sc-syd-fimr01.ap.verizon.com ([203.166.70.67]) by eesmtp01.ap.verizon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Sep 2015 14:25:36 +0800
Received: from sc-syd-fimr01.ap.verizon.com ([203.166.70.67]:40684) by sc-syd-fimr01.ap.verizon.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <palanivelan.appanasamy@intl.verizon.com>) id 1ZaHmA-0003hb-4P; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:25:34 +0000
Received: from [166.45.22.77] (helo=MS-BAN-E7MB01.intl1.one.verizon.com) by sc-syd-fimr01.ap.verizon.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <palanivelan.appanasamy@intl.verizon.com>) id 1ZaHm9-0003hM-6A; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:25:34 +0000
Received: from MS-BAN-E7MB01.intl1.one.verizon.com ([166.45.22.77]) by MS-BAN-E7MB01.intl1.one.verizon.com ([166.45.22.77]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:55:31 +0530
To: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)" <william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:55:30 +0530
Thread-Topic: MPTCP Interim September 10 - Meeting Notes
Thread-Index: AQHQ6/S51TQ5Yvq/h0mu8e6yQOieJJ423GRg
Message-ID: <70AEAEC90FCAE0408586E94F491A07EC04C84E3F94@MS-BAN-E7MB01.intl1.one.verizon.com>
References: <D217405D.35070%william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <D217405D.35070%william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-VZ-EMEA-INT-SIG: d55074a271358bf64c859d1dc0c346ff
X-APAC-E2-SIG: d55074a271358bf64c859d1dc0c346ff
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/qDRfG0gZKdBCz-k5bevwgchtykQ>
Cc: "Harsha, Chetan H" <chetan.harsha@in.verizon.com>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP Interim September 10 - Meeting Notes
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: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:25:43 -0000
Thanks all. We will work on detailing the use cases into a draft and have this discussed in the next meeting. Chetan confirms that he is attending Yokahama IETF in November. Keep Sharing your feedback or improvements. Thanks. Regards, A.Palanivelan -----Original Message----- From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0) Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:46 PM To: multipathtcp@ietf.org Subject: [multipathtcp] MPTCP Interim September 10 - Meeting Notes IETF - MPTCPSlides are here at bottom of page: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/trac/wiki/Interim_Sept_2015 Note Taker: Will Ivancic Note, I did not try and capture names to questions. * Agenda * Status * Removing Charter item, ³Implementation advice (Informational) to IESG² * MPTCP use cases - Enhancement Opportunities * Short Flows vs Long Flow - really need to have some strategy / demarcation. * Elastic vs Inelastic Applications * MPTCP path selections * high packet loss and high latency * multiple profiles * roaming * Controlling number of sub flow getting created * Can this be controlled? How? * Security has many open issues - TBD * Discussion * Choice of path selection is interesting area to explore * Some tools already exist in MPTCP - how to use them requires communication of deployment experience * Looking more from ISP point of view than end-user point of view * MPTCP for Channel Bonding - NASA Atmospheric research * Uses 4 Iridium Modems at 2.4 kbps each (9600 bps total) * Discussion * Which kind of stack are you going to use? Existing or otherwise * Will Ivancic - we plan on using the existing implementations. * What is the schedule? * Will - we are currently working with PPP-MP, which has a lot of options that can be tweaked, we will then move on to MPTCP * Matt Sargent - We have not installed a MPTCP stack yet, but we have been seeing that PPP has issue with the length of time needed to detect a loss. So it will be interesting to see how MPTCP handles the same problem of detection of the lost link. * Will - Results will be published. * This is an interesting use case of MPTCP * * Will Ivancic- Yes it should be interesting to see how it compares as it might be tough with the environment. * Chair - Yes it was *really* interesting to hear about the use case as it is a *really* low bit rate. * MPTCP Proxy Considerations * support use of MPTCP when one or both peers are not capable of MPTCP. * Traffic aggregation * Firewalls may disable MPTCP * traffic aggregation could break security deployments * Next Steps * welcome comments * looking for people interested in forming design team * Discussion * Bits to set proxy (should those be in updated MPTCP draft, RFC6825bis?) * Open Issues * 8 bit vs 16 bit for mptcp-exp-option * Original was 16 vs 32 - why so large (32) * 8 bits seems to small, 16 appears fine for vendor experimental options and/or deployments. * Do not want vendor specific deployments - for experimentation, OK, but not operations or no interoperability. * Paasch - 8 bits keeps options down and reduces chance of incompatible implementations * 8-bit will be sent to list * ADD_ADDR2 Flags field format will be sent to mail list. * Making MPTCP robust for stateless webserveres * Used to handle SYN-flooding attacks * Currently loss of third ACK in MPTCP will result in a fallback to regular TCP * Problem for lossy path (where MPTCP would/should provide benefit) * Suggestions - Make MP_CAPABLE reliable * merge MP_CAPABLE with DSS-option * MP_CAPABLE implementation would reduce MP_CAPABLE by 4 bytes * Should this be included in RFC6824bis? * Nigel Wiolliams - should have been in original version but was oversight - in favor of inclusion. * What happens if client does not send data? * Need to look at load balance issues regarding this solution. * Load Balancer and MPTCP * Intro on how load balancers operate. * multiple servers represented by single IP address * adding or removing servers requires different solution then ECMP so stageful layer-4 load balancer (stageful) is used * in reality, multiple layer-4 load balancers are used. * Tutorial on how MPTCP interacts with load balancers. * Layer-4 load balancer need to track <token-to-server> mapping * Token collision of different servers are possible * Problem increases of multiple load balancers are used. * MPTCP- session may reach different load balancers * Solution Space * Need to make token-generation locally meaningful * How does one signal the token? Two current proposals * different token generation by splitting MPTCP-key into two 32bit sections. * No wire-change, but reduces entropy by 32 bits. * Explicitly generate token. * Token not related to key * consumes 4 more bytes * server needs to act stately * Conclusion Token should be locally meaningful * Guarantees uniqueness * Enables layer-4 load balancers * Signaling is open question. * Discussion * Paasch - Reuse keys looks promising * Strong assumption on attacker model. assumption is that attacker cannot eves drop on initial handshake. May not be a good assumption. * Take discussion to list and reiterate. _______________________________________________ multipathtcp mailing list multipathtcp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
- [multipathtcp] MPTCP Interim September 10 - Meeti… Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP Interim September 10 - M… Appanasamy, Palanivelan