IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multipathtcp] API: which address to use

"SCHARF, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 12 November 2009 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E016A3A6B84 for <multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:10:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rweXqVgvqvbv for <multipathtcp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailrelay2.alcatel.de (mailrelay2.alcatel.de [194.113.59.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A633A6B6A for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de (slfsn2.rcs.de.alcatel-lucent.com [149.204.60.99]) by mailrelay2.alcatel.de (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id nAC2B4X1006770; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:11:04 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:11:01 +0100
Message-ID: <133D9897FB9C5E4E9DF2779DC91E947C01B6AD22@SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de>
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0911090615g7a2dedb6x8a6a1ddf2aea2dd8@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] API: which address to use
Thread-Index: AcphRycJIIqU3wUIQEKM9ZGeoTUMfgB9Nqaw
References: <E9EE0C1A-C9D3-4EBC-97FD-E1B1628CD2E7@iki.fi><3c3e3fca0911090542h54e45784qbdbf1f338a4c3e90@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0911090615g7a2dedb6x8a6a1ddf2aea2dd8@mail.gmail.com>
From: "SCHARF, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>, Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 149.204.45.73
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] API: which address to use
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:10:44 -0000

> I stand by what I said about getsockname, however specifying 
> a PF_INETMP in the original socket call would be more 
> appropriate than PF_INET or PF_INET6 if we intend multipath 
> to be protocol family agnostic. It would also be a reasonable 
> way for the app to signal to the stack whether it expects the 
> use of multipath.

I think that a PF_INETMP could indeed be a non-mandatory way to enable
MPTCP (MPTCP would still also be used with PF_INET or PF_INET6 in order
to be backward compatible). Are there any other opinions on the
PF_INETMP solution?

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email