Re: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy

[Rao Shoaib <[e-mail]>]

I do not understand why TCP is in scope and any other protocol is not. 
At the Yokohama IETF most in the room were interested in encapsulating 
UDP. In fact encapsulating TCP has more implications (due to its end to 
end congestion control) than UDP and hence that needs to be studied.

A compromise could be that we define a generic option that means, 
interpret the header enclosed or some thing like that. It's too bad that 
the mobile environment can not deal with the extra header. In which case 
it should always use transparent proxying.

Rao.

On 07/26/2016 08:07 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> So far this discussion has made me a bit confused. Let me ask a 
> specific question:-
>
> Why do we need both transparent and plain mode? If these are 
> addressing different usage scenarios, please explain them (in a 
> paragraph?)  (this is important as a charter item would start by 
> talking about the issue it was tackling – and then may mention some 
> starting points or assumptions about the solution)
>
> Plain mode involves a signalling protocol (extension to mptcp – I 
> assume this would be in scope of a prospective charter); then 
> subsequently a way of handling the actual traffic (UDP seems out of 
> scope; TCP I’m not sure to what extent this would be in scope). Do I 
> understand this right? Comments?
>
> Thanks
>
> phil
>