Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 20 October 2016 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 E6BCF129441 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 ZI54TwLit6uE for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor36.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C461312943F for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9A532C0E3D; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:56:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.69]) by opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6A0C712006E; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:56:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::bc1c:ad2f:eda3:8c3d%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:56:47 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Thread-Index: AQHSKe2YbcpIYSt9B0aTZVhfvo8tF6Cw1/QQ
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:56:46 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D9572E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CCD1A987-0F3C-4775-8B0E-5232965E7E22@nokia.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D945B7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <428609FE-DE79-45CD-B668-EF95F409B593@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009D94DFB@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BC6170D1-2CB9-4192-8FEB-5C4D030B520F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BC6170D1-2CB9-4192-8FEB-5C4D030B520F@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/xiXHF3Jcwlc0UQ_plN2VLtO8Lmw>
Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:56:51 -0000

Hi Alan, 

There is a modification that we expect from the base MPTCP. It is basically associating a meaning with a flag in the MP_CAPABLE option.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Alan Ford [mailto:alan.ford@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 octobre 2016 11:46
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : Mirja Kühlewind; multipathtcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> 
> Do you guys expect any impact on the base protocol from this work?
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
> 
> > On 19 Oct 2016, at 06:28, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> >
> > I'm for these two cases to be included:
> > * Case 1 is the mandatory piece to have.
> > * Case 2 solves the problem for no TCP traffic while leveraging on the
> same extensions that are used for case 1.
> >
> > I do fully agree that case 2 requires inter-area/WG coordination.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch]
> >> Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2016 17:46
> >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> >> Cc : Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE); philip.eardley@bt.com;
> >> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> >>
> >> Hi Med, hi all,
> >>
> >> there are two cases to distinguish here:
> >>
> >> 1) you have one or two MPTCP proxies that terminate the TCP connection
> and
> >> open a new MPTCP connection
> >>
> >> 2) you tunnel other traffic over MPTCP
> >>
> >> Case two is using TCP as a tunneling mechanism. This is discussed in
> >> several working groups for different purposes and is not very straight-
> >> forward in a lot of cases. Such an approach definitely needs
> coordination
> >> and transport as well as tunnel expertise.
> >>
> >> Which case are you talking about? While Phil’s proposal sounded rather
> >> like case 1, your proposal sounds very much like case 2.
> >>
> >> Mirja
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 18.10.2016 um 07:52 schrieb mohamed.boucadair@orange.com:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Wim,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this can be main stream.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Med
> >>>
> >>> De : Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE) [mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com]
> >>> Envoyé : lundi 17 octobre 2016 23:22
> >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; philip.eardley@bt.com;
> >> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> >>> Objet : Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the late reply, but more in-line
> >>>
> >>> From: multipathtcp <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
> >> "mohamed. boucadair" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> >>> Date: Friday, 7 October 2016 at 09:08
> >>> To: "philip.eardley@bt.com" <philip.eardley@bt.com>om>,
> >> "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> >>>
> >>> Hi Phil,
> >>>
> >>> Please see inline.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Med
> >>>
> >>> De : multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> >> philip.eardley@bt.com
> >>> Envoyé : lundi 8 août 2016 11:50
> >>> À : multipathtcp@ietf.org
> >>> Objet : [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
> >>>
> >>> I had thought a potential charter item could be something on the lines
> >> of:
> >>> <Experimental Extensions to the MPTCP protocol to enable an MPTCP-
> aware
> >> middlebox to act as an MPTCP proxy for an end host, which runs TCP. One
> or
> >> both end hosts may be MPTCP-unaware, and the MPTCP proxy(s) is (are)
> not
> >> necessarily on the default routing path(s). The working group will also
> >> detail, in an Informational document, the use cases /deployment
> scenarios
> >> and the operational considerations.>
> >>>
> >>> [Med] I would like to see the charter includes the following; “The
> >> working group will also edit Network-Assisted Multipath provisioning
> >> documents. In particular, the WG will specify DHCP options and RADIUS
> >> attributes for MPTCP.”
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> WH> I am fine with this, but why do we state experimental extensions?
> >> Why is this not main stream?
> >>> However, if I get the discussion right, this is not quite right.
> >>> * assume a controlled environment (to avoid a problem where the
> message
> >> reaches the ‘wrong’ proxy) (IETF usually prefers generally applicable
> >> protocols)
> >>> * assume some (?additional) ‘header swapping’ protocol and a new
> >> signalling protocol (not an mptcp extension – so probably in INTAREA
> WG’s
> >> remit)
> >>> [Med] IMHO, it is not odd to document in the mptcp wg how a Network-
> >> Assisted MPTCP solution can also be applicable to other protocols (UDP
> in
> >> particular). This work can be done jointly/closely with other WGs. The
> >> important point is whether there is enough interest from the mptpcp WG
> >> members to work on this.
> >>> WH> indeed is to specify the means in MPTCP WG and other WG can be
> >> consulted to review the work. If you split it out it becomes less
> >> efficient from a protocol perspective.
> >>> If the above is roughly right, then I think some extra work is needed
> >> before we can get a clear charter item. Can some of the work that isn’t
> >> mptcp extensions be cleanly separated out? Can you be clear what
> >> deployment assumptions are being made (and preferably reduce them, so
> >> there is wider applicability). Personally I’d also find it very helpful
> if
> >> the plain/transparent ‘merged’ draft could try and follow the guidance
> >> about protocol models in RFC4101 (personally I found the plain mode doc
> >> difficult to understand).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> multipathtcp mailing list
> >>> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > multipathtcp mailing list
> > multipathtcp@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp