Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item

Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Mon, 14 November 2016 07:34 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 544471296CE for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:34:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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, 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 elOgzqoi0FCF for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:34:05 -0800 (PST)
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 426981296C5 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:34:05 -0800 (PST)
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 1E6AF67D9BA; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:33:57 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 1E6AF67D9BA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1479108837; bh=CZGPGVCnRA3/l4X8pFShf8uP9H5j2zcEDnRiGFNondE=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Ja5BTKqfov4oFB4s4ZBk7y9VGfHQvSyiH/tZkccKN8Qw39J+g8GZq/1U94RtJf82D m7Rm3pXModsv23rl9kEYVZYaDAGHVWf148d+jVCwEIXuGi6fm8BypZvK2FNywqhtLp UiowVwO/3luGQIvkuMsIeTsz/OUWSsgakMRB55ng=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-3
References: <0898853c01b245aa8b3c45c9da478d6a@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <286B053B-7E5E-4FD8-A767-DAC55E8D42C9@gmail.com> <1479105129326.45083@bt.com> <1479107655590.84874@bt.com>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com, alan.ford@gmail.com
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <4535cac2-b09d-7ad0-1658-cf39cad470ea@uclouvain.be>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:33:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1479107655590.84874@bt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 1E6AF67D9BA.AAD77
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/y6H2M4U8Ms28V6O08zZRiW1AixE>
Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Towards a Multipath TCP Proxy work item
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 07:34:06 -0000

Phil,

> something it would be good to have discussion about.
>
> We could restrict to where both proxies are under the control of the
> same operator. I think this matches the current deployments, and it
> would simplify the security and config
>

For the two-ended proxies, I agree that in current deployments the same 
operator controls both proxies.



Olivier