[multipathtcp] Multipath TCP Address advertisement 2/5 - Reliability

Fabien Duchêne <fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be> Wed, 03 August 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <fabien.duchene@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 EDDA312D0CF for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 bXCfdnct_8YN for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.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 554ED12D1E3 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.104.228.52] (unknown [130.104.228.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: duchenef@smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E73667DB67 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:41:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 0E73667DB67
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1470238895; bh=D931n7jtJou0uYHF6uG9YS/4645LFfp5F97WiJN0Wvs=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=JCVLdn77aWwCo+caygVAg9FONhYzNay+jqtw3oHkLCa//16wgfMDNFLuHkceaw7Mo S9Om+JpmkxL6FYgfFeK5ZIVgsr52jUk6drl9qpsrbqSbW2Y+BlIXWPZGS83hQm0bIt de+5sWhBicdcT+ic+MZFNs84N0pinnG/3esgXJP4=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at smtp-2
To: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabien_Duch=c3=aane?= <fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <57A211F9.1020809@uclouvain.be>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:47:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 0E73667DB67.A1F30
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: fabien.duchene@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/z-YoLnAxYCOi62f-hPOYninGI44>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Multipath TCP Address advertisement 2/5 - Reliability
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:42:22 -0000

Hello,

As agreed in Berlin during IETF96, I'm sending a series of emails to
discuss the different contributions proposed
inhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duchene-mptcp-add-addr/

This is the part 2/5 : reliability.

In RFC6824, ADD_ADDR options can be attached to segments carrying data
or pure acknowledgements.
In practice, notably given the length of ADD_ADDR with IPv6 addresses
and the HMAC, it is very likely that they will be often sent as pure
acknowledgements.
This implies that ADD_ADDR are sent unreliably, which could be
problematic when the ADD_ADDR is required to allow the establishment of
additional subflows, as in load balancing scenarios. 
We propose to rely on the "E" (Echo) flag in the ADD_ADDR option.
This echo flag is used to acknolwedge a received ADD_ADDR by echoing it.
If the acknowledgement is not received, the ADD_ADDR option will be
retransmitted up to N times.

Fabien