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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 24 April 2017 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 0157E131586 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 l7JcnzO8GiEl for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD272131626 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.68]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 577D540369; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:03:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 238E74006B; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:03:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9898:741c:bc1d:258d%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:03:23 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
CC: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AQHSvQneFYN3Pf6Ey0Kw29UUSw2QvaHUm0kQ
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:03:23 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E52E56@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <99affa00-5118-1a0f-227a-b3f4b751ffd4@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E4FBB2@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <11026acd-8f91-ff42-299d-b646c19c953e@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E503BE@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <d53d6f13-f412-c42f-53a6-04637c7fef9b@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E50F91@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5df14875-b0ec-1052-d3e9-bb7936d4429a@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E51CDF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <9a803d8c-0c2a-9b5c-cd2a-fb4ce23ea3bd@isi.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E52977@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <78A398AB-57BC-4CB2-BEE6-46704FA6E849@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <78A398AB-57BC-4CB2-BEE6-46704FA6E849@isi.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/s0ZsmmlbFzVNF0Wb4z8N8FHfiwU>
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: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:04:57 -0000

Re-,

Do you consider a NAT implementation as part of your first category or the second one?

BTW, the mptcp proxy documents do only describe the external behavior. No implementation-specific assumptions/details are included. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu]
> Envoyé : lundi 24 avril 2017 16:49
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : philip.eardley@bt.com; multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
> 
> Med,
> 
> A proxy can operate at the conventional socket layer and would not have or
> need direct access to SYN segments. Any information needed to reconstitute
> the SYN at the upstream proxy could be retrieved in other ways.
> 
> You're pushing a split-TCP solution, one that (again, I repeat) the IETF
> has never sanctioned and I do not agree with.
> 
> Joe
> 
> > On Apr 24, 2017, at 1:23 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; wrote:
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Transforming a TCP connection into MPTCP connection will obviously need
> to access to SYNs to insert MPTCP options.
> >
> > This is the basic behavior of ** any ** MPTCP proxy.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu]
> >> Envoyé : vendredi 21 avril 2017 18:04
> >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; philip.eardley@bt.com;
> >> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
> >>
> >> Med,
> >>
> >> I've made my position clear too.
> >>
> >> I do not support this doc as MPTCP work.
> >>
> >> I also call into question whether this is in-scope for MPTCP. MPTCP is
> >> chartered to work within MPTCP - but this solution requires access to
> >> raw incoming SYNs inside a different TCP connection, which is no longer
> >> in-scope IMO.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >