Re: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item

"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Thu, 20 October 2016 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@nokia.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 328F812946C for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 21:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-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 IezOcscLoax9 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 21:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84016129497 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 21:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 21CA3559AFCA1; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:01:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u9K418E0011102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:01:09 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u9K4171x028498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 06:01:07 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.36]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 06:01:07 +0200
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] potential MPTCP proxy charter item
Thread-Index: AQHSKLyB5UNJQfueOkOQCZciJSJaMaCvPmIggAApyoCAAH4vgIAA1VSA
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:01:06 +0000
Message-ID: <FA114A50-B70E-40BD-8A21-3983FF2E73CE@nokia.com>
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> <B45B1904-20C6-41A5-B5DB-F69AB1D75242@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <B45B1904-20C6-41A5-B5DB-F69AB1D75242@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8931CD635C859243AC4E1DBF3D994035@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/y_p3XLPoNMH1tAApOaapowzzTsg>
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 04:01:15 -0000

Alan, one thing that came to mind to support long TCP option for plain-mode/TFO something might be required in the base draft.
For Ipv6 we need more space and if we design it well we can use it for TCP-AO, etc etc

Besides this we are good afais 

On 19/10/2016, 17:17, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> wrote:

    I don’t expect changes to the base spec. AT least not with the current view of the solution/implementations.
    
    On 19/10/2016, 11:45, "multipathtcp on behalf of Alan Ford" <multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of alan.ford@gmail.com> wrote:
    
        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
        
        _______________________________________________
        multipathtcp mailing list
        multipathtcp@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp