Re: [multipathtcp] explicit mode for smartphone scenario
Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Tue, 28 March 2017 07:32 UTC
Return-Path: <olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
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 EAFB2127876 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uclouvain.be
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 z5E1jpkk8--w for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DF82129413 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbpobo.dhcp.info.ucl.ac.be (mbpobo.dhcp.info.ucl.ac.be [130.104.228.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88B7467DC84; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:32:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 88B7467DC84
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1490686354; bh=sVoxVNXkFa6wEOGmhibxYxQ/SntKRERVJp2wkajEyS8=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=rOuWQXYZD5aQ000idT6FwTY0cUmegIxyFHTX7SImTheLAXb6lnWQHHAkju0AAlmBb BntsCKyfG0P2jezIivspda9FFZbkzVIaQijb7dnejZZqEx/SD8Jasm/uF/unzuEnJl WQa+FBWahjk1Oj/Gwe081Jhob0TzPs8IjbFWWOno=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-3
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
References: <11215e1e3fdf4500958a24524d123bf0@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com, multipathtcp@ietf.org
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <c3832e09-3c71-2b42-6ad6-620a51eb3eea@uclouvain.be>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:32:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11215e1e3fdf4500958a24524d123bf0@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 88B7467DC84.A4568
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/uAkqFjXwnYIfcqGAcrtEtpjPMu0>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] explicit mode for smartphone scenario
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:32:56 -0000
Phil, > > So continuing to concentrate first **specifically** on the solution for > this use case: > > <<. The other scenario involves an MPTCP-enabled smartphone, with LTE > and WiFi, plus a proxy in the operator’s network.>> > > And now looking at “explicit” solutions – meaning the smartphone is > configured to know about the proxy. > > > > I’d like to understand better the pros and cons of the solution proposed > in the plain-mode draft and the solution that uses SOCKS protocol > between smartphone and the proxy. (I’m not sure where /if the latter is > fully defined, described in > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-mptcp-3.pdf and > https://dial.uclouvain.be/downloader/downloader.php?pid=thesis%3A366&datastream=PDF_01 There are different variants of SOCKS that can be used. They mainly depend on the number of messages that are used to authenticate the smartphone. In https://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/system/files/PAM2016_54-deconinck.pdf we used a SOCKS proxy that was configured with very weak authentication to minimise the additional delay for the establishment of the TCP connections. I don't know which type of authentication has been deployed in Korea. There are two issues that need to be considered when deploying proxies for the smartphone use case : a- minimise the end-to-end connection establishment time. Ideally, it should be possible to create an end-to-end connection with a single handshake and thus a single end-to-end rtt. When we analysed real smartphone traffic, we found that many connections were very short. SOCKS requires additional rtts between the smartphone and the proxy to establish eash connection. The plain-mode minimises the end-to-end connection establishment delay compared to SOCKS proxies. b- authenticate the client (resp. the proxy) on the proxy (resp. the client) and possibly encrypt the traffic. SOCKS supports several mechanisms to authenticate the client and some implementation of SOCKS, such as the popular shadowsocks that was used in the PAM paper mentioned above, support proprietary authentication scheme. Encrypting wireless traffic makes a lot of sense in the smartphone scenario since it will likely hop from one WiFi network to another. Note that some operators could want to restrict the utilisation of the proxies on cellular and WiFi networks that they operate. On such networks, the IP addresses assigned by the operator could be sufficient to authenticate the client/proxy. Olivier
- [multipathtcp] explicit mode for smartphone scena… philip.eardley
- Re: [multipathtcp] explicit mode for smartphone s… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [multipathtcp] explicit mode for smartphone s… Olivier Bonaventure