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

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Mon, 08 August 2016 09:19 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.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 C78D912D0C5 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 02:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, 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 aDmf-JNj7hum for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 02:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 294AA12D0A0 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 02:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVCAS16-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.107) by EVMED06-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:19:43 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03d.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.30) by EVCAS16-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:19:46 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03d.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:19:44 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:19:45 +0100
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy
Thread-Index: AdHjZ4nHkoHVP9v7Rwqgdt1DLC/zlgD5RCMAACN7ZwABC2yHYAAJOw2AACf33CAABC8fAAEd1ABw
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:19:45 +0000
Message-ID: <8b32db1c85584a7f879ae47e05374ca4@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <b779dd12f1bb412c96c800eddaaf0247@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <9cafc779-502e-cc7f-676c-f6659e207c81@uclouvain.be> <5fadd9cfcc01401b84db03052e165c69@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <D3994CAB-846A-4418-A399-C48D196717A3@nokia.com> <1612497ced7e4f288781dfd89ff1e6cf@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <07C3A957-7706-4A26-9D7B-864C6B93D157@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <07C3A957-7706-4A26-9D7B-864C6B93D157@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.202.243]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/tS8ZcO3KdgmAvXIqtKyqZ5PREok>
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, 08 Aug 2016 09:19:51 -0000

>
>Phil:
>What are the interactions with endhost-to-endhost MPTCP?  I imagined there wouldn’t be any, but it sounds like there are some.

WH> there should be none, but the proxy should ensure he doesn’t touch it. Hence we are looking to understand if a dual ended proxy should  perform a proxy function or not. So the end-host is not impacted but the network-assisted proxies would be made aware what to do. Make sense?
> 
Afraid not. 
(personal view) if I get it right, a (?router, ?proxy) has to distinguish whether the (?mptcp signalling message ?every packet) is part of end-to-end mptcp connection, or part of mptcp proxied connection. That seems to add overhead, an may mean you have to be careful about the deployment.