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

Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com> Mon, 01 August 2016 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rao.shoaib@oracle.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 2F25A12D123 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-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 8Ti5DXwrdttz for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (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 D619C12D103 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u71IokTR001306 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 18:50:46 GMT
Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u71IojOu014624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 18:50:45 GMT
Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u71IodXs026723 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 18:50:45 GMT
Received: from [10.159.157.33] (/10.159.157.33) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:50:39 -0700
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
References: <b779dd12f1bb412c96c800eddaaf0247@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <e6c10e9e-d3c6-af46-b996-19d59cdb0c86@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:50:34 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------90846C0CA8F5D248190C0D86"
X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/sxSPs5Dh-G2-i9koOD8xtvh1_bI>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 01 Aug 2016 18:50:48 -0000

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, philip.eardley@bt.com 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
>