IETF Logo Mail Archive

[multipathtcp] Two proxy scenario (network proxy off path)

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 01:24 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 126BC12956B for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 K97pIEWjItoC for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98DD9127B52 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHT04-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.57) by EVMED03-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:24:01 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) by EVMHT04-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:24:01 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:24:01 +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 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:24:01 +0100
From: philip.eardley@bt.com
To: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Two proxy scenario (network proxy off path)
Thread-Index: AdKoJ5zQqp6DxGj1TeSb3FIu9At16g==
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:24:00 +0000
Message-ID: <6284b86cf96445548c88452da0daf225@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
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: [10.216.161.27]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/tvc3VlJktzQcUERwFDRwBNjBd8s>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Two proxy scenario (network proxy off path)
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:24:07 -0000

Hi, 

I'm now thinking about the scenario where there are two proxies, one in the home gateway or Customer Premises Equipment and one in the network, both under the control of the operator. And looking at the 'explicit mode' scenario, which - if I get it right - means that the network proxy is not on the default path. (It's safe to assume that the home gateway proxy is on the default path)

Thinking about the use of SOCKS in this context.

Earlier Olivier said (in the context of the smartphone scenario -  sorry if your comments don't apply to this scenario and I'm just creating confusion) that there are different variants of SOCKS that can be used, which mainly depend on the number of messages that are used to authenticate.
In the two proxy scenario, it's probably reasonable to assume that the home gateway and network proxy are already authenticated. So a non-chatty version would be ok.

Is that right?

Thanks
phil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email