Re: [multipathtcp] charter discussion

Olivier Bonaventure <> Fri, 07 April 2017 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9EE1200C1 for <>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.729
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzuEGf7E_AH2 for <>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ABF129531 for <>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 750E967DF50; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:59:09 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 750E967DF50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=selucl; t=1491591549; bh=vAX/WadT2VMrPV+qd6rd8nWZ3Iu6+17Ea/V1Ylb+Pe8=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Vet0MeB/WrcIVwO2LTWW+yt65ebQk4zk386/xO9/9FYgUlouzRPNyAWViRiinhcy5 PBRfbB+kUmjQZ2eQOZdQcX12DVa4YbH+dh4cmzRCSeTx1OivPlcrsv9GmUKn4+qqX4 ox2adctFkdsn7uXGjc1dEuG/m1a5NpohJIQ0M26c=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-1
References: <> <> <>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:55:55 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 750E967DF50.A2E67
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] charter discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:04:53 -0000

>     __ __
>     The slide was intended to be just a very high-level sketch. In both
>     #1 and #2, the objective of the signalling is to get an endpoint’s
>     IP address info into the ‘other’ proxy, so the proxy can do address
>     mapping (translation) on subsequent packets (including the ACK) so
>     that packets can travel between the endpoints. In both #1 and #2,
>     the idea is that this signalling is done along with the TCP SYN, so
>     that the connection via the proxies is set up with no delay (“0 RTT”)
> You did not answer the issues I raised below with each option, plus you
> raised another one, how does it work in 0 RTT, e.g. in Option #1 or #2?

0-rtt means that the proxy does not introduce an additional delay 
compared to the normal TCP handshake. In option 1, see draft-plain-mode, 
this is achieved by placing the control information in the SYN segments