Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 C96A012773A for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netapp.onmicrosoft.com
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 QZyxTZ01R3uU for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx143.netapp.com (mx143.netapp.com [216.240.21.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64370127599 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,228,1488873600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="188746297"
Received: from hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.39]) by mx143-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2017 22:48:37 -0700
Received: from VMWEXCCAS05-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.21) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:02:03 -0700
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.120.60.153) by VMWEXCCAS05-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:02:03 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netapp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-netapp-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=5Wsy9RaDHy01r7c4mGuP1/nU+AIV3AR+bG/knrGUqpY=; b=owcckr/SVLNCrtDj8zsnz3HwFvw6a7JjPm0pl/kfpsOByKLPCoPujX3VsZvv6tdeKEEJqAEhhuDvMsGWHhEFL3GKQvo9/9wTabnAs8npaKsosxqgJ5NwodKOAbrUg3oru2hGq2ie7Is7M+Xs6QLnxE5Q4Eb4+G3KkEHIiOC/3so=
Received: from BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.157.18) by BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.157.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1047.13; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:02:02 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.157.18]) by BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.157.18]) with mapi id 15.01.1047.013; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:02:01 +0000
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Philip Eardley <philip.eardley@bt.com>
CC: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
Thread-Index: AdK4HBNY1jXzvDFKRxmRsHBM53IcbgCSLSEA
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:02:01 +0000
Message-ID: <3F6DAF4F-87AD-411E-96A6-4FB52FF83F6D@netapp.com>
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
authentication-results: bt.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;bt.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=netapp.com;
x-originating-ip: [217.70.211.15]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0601MB1153; 7:zTBjJhkd5ObUkifZulOFYfW0y8j9hU6ccx2pWeuTFgPStlUu9x1Ge2amo6UbM1bkqTKbkK9td8aphnqtyXww87ZR82ddvaCf0uS8qw7ytDG1D4o90dR4BXnA0imqC66x8ciMxVDXO22CMY3WbltmMwHRdtqOXICj9azLH8koF9a1aXrmY33ZcNOkrrXgDzU3wOD+K4zzIIHZ6gPtE0A1jbCtfoW9QGBl5c+s8koK260wAz7JvnNV7TJADfGQZ8tRHP7BvWTy57axXatUvFYyl10b89Und4bqWS2pmRR/byiK5RhahzDIvonnHNqioBr3D10XXF2jevhI9C1DXUFzUg==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 15215e65-47dc-42fd-a33c-08d4887bedd2
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075); SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0601MB11538FF3CEFFCFA440DB0A7EA71A0@BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(146908506813832)(100405760836317);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415395)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153;
x-forefront-prvs: 02843AA9E0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(6009001)(39400400002)(39840400002)(39850400002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(377424004)(24454002)(33656002)(99936001)(76176999)(36756003)(50986999)(3280700002)(57306001)(2906002)(106356001)(3660700001)(81166006)(8676002)(7736002)(50226002)(8936002)(6116002)(3846002)(305945005)(5660300001)(6436002)(102836003)(6486002)(77096006)(99286003)(82746002)(6506006)(229853002)(4326008)(25786009)(53546009)(53936002)(66066001)(6512007)(6246003)(110136004)(189998001)(83716003)(122556002)(4001150100001)(38730400002)(6916009)(86362001)(2950100002)(2900100001)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0601MB1153; H:BN3PR0601MB1153.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E66CE165-3AE0-45E6-A114-E4B2E9C1448B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Apr 2017 06:02:01.7504 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4b0911a0-929b-4715-944b-c03745165b3a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0601MB1153
X-OriginatorOrg: netapp.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/uXLnG97Px30qKYJ6WMG1-D0Xtqw>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 06:03:09 -0000

On 2017-4-18, at 10:17, philip.eardley@bt.com wrote:
> Please say whether you support, or don’t support, such work – so we can see if there’s consensus for it.

I don't support doing proxy work in MPTCP.

Sure, you can probably take a sledgehammer to MPTCP and make it roughly conform to what operators believe they need here (cf. RFC1925 clause 3). But I believe that MPTCP is fundamentally the wrong starting point for solutions to this problem space.

Lars