Re: [multipathtcp] draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode-07

[Rao Shoaib <[e-mail]>]

On 05/30/2016 02:22 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Shoaib,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : multipathtcp [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Rao
>> Shoaib
>> Envoyé : samedi 28 mai 2016 10:56
>> À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode-07
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/25/2016 12:07 PM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote:
>>> Rao,
>>>> On 05/25/2016 12:50 AM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote:
>>>>> The assumption is that this solution will be deployed in controlled
>>>>> environments and only used between the CPE and the Concentrator. Since
>>>>> the operator controls the two networks that are bound together, he can
>>>>> verify that there are no middleboxes that drop the PM option.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Olivier
>>>> I am extremely interested in encapsulating UDP in MPTCP but this
>>>> solution is very specific and hence why should it even be standardized
>> ?
>>> There is a clear demand from operators for a solution to this problem
>>> in hybrid access networks.
>> OK but this solution is very specific to the mobile network.
> [Med] The solution is not specific to the mobile network, but targets all network providers who want to allow their customers to make use of all available network attachments (e.g., fixed, WLAN, cellular, etc.)
The way it is designed it is very specific to a particular use case and 
is not a generic encapsulation solution.
>
>   We would
>> prefer a generic encapsulation solution which has no address mapping.
> [Med] It seems that you want to cover the case of an MPTCP-enabled host communicating an MPTCP-enabled server exchanging any protocol data inside an MPTCP connection? Can you please confirm/infirm?
Yes. We want a generic MPTCP encapsulation solution with no address 
mapping. Address mapping and other features (like single connection) 
should be separate options.
>> Maybe the address mapping part should be made optional based on a flag ?
> [Med] The technical details can be worked out once we understand your deployment case.
>
> [snip]
OK.
>
>
> After re-reading the draft I think the proposal for encapsulation is
> pretty good, only minor details need to be cleared up.
>
> [Med] Thank you. We are more than open to discuss those details.
>
>
Great. I think first we need to decide if we want a generic 
encapsulation solution (which is why I want) or do we entangle it with 
the other requirements of the cellular deployment.

Shoaib