Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work

Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr> Tue, 18 April 2017 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>
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 C051E12EC18 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 K4LoVx2OExwE for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from osiris.lip6.fr (osiris.lip6.fr [132.227.60.30]) (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 24601128E19 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tibre.lip6.fr (tibre.lip6.fr [132.227.74.2]) by osiris.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id v3IGbERE017986 ; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:37:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-pt: osiris.lip6.fr
Received: from portablesecci3.rsr.lip6.fr (portablesecci3 [132.227.85.235]) (authenticated bits=0) by tibre.lip6.fr (8.15.1/8.14.7) with ESMTPSA id v3IGbENb016298 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:37:14 +0200 (MEST)
From: Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_034777B7-503E-4601-831B-0F8662D1CA75"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:37:12 +0200
References: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: philip.eardley@bt.com, multipathtcp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8c5ffa879686472594bfd3db2fa06076@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-Id: <9271EDB5-9D4A-4AA0-972C-0C08AF0427DC@lip6.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (osiris.lip6.fr [132.227.60.30]); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:37:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.30
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/z8Yt_UCXxbKVyzYo3ww_IfghHRU>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Consensus call on potential MPTCP proxy work
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:37:28 -0000

Hello WG,

I do support the MPTCP proxy work.

Cheers,
Stefano

> Le 18 avr. 2017 à 10:17, philip.eardley@bt.com a écrit :
> 
> Hi,
> During the MPTCP meeting in Chicago we did several hums about potential MPTCP proxy work. Our interpretation of these hums is that we should do a consensus call for the following work:
> --
> MPTCP is now seeing widespread deployment in networks to bond together two accesses, such as fixed and mobile broadband, by using two MPTCP proxies, one in the home gateway or Customer Premises Equipment and one in the network. The WG develops a solution where the proxies are both under the control of the operator and where it is assumed that they are not on the default path. The solution is based on using the payload of an MPTCP packet to transfer a signalling message between the proxies. It is believed the solution will not require changes to RFC6824bis. The solution may require a means of configuring set-up information in the proxies, which would be done in coordination with other IETF WGs such as DHC. The WG does not develop a mechanism for the two proxies to discover each other.
> --
> Please say whether you support, or don’t support, such work – so we can see if there’s consensus for it.
> Thanks
> Phil & Yoshi
>  
> Hums during the meeting:
> ·         Should the MPTCP WG do any MPTCP proxy work, or do none – about 2:1 or 3:1 in favour of doing work
> 
> ·         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #1 in slide 12? Strongly more yes than no
> 
> ·         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #2 in slide 12? more no than yes
> 
> ·         Should the MPTCP WG do proxy work based on option #3 in slide 12? Weak & roughly equal
> 
> Ref: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-mptcp-sessa-chairs-01.pdf <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-mptcp-sessa-chairs-01.pdf>
> We believe the work does not require an update to the MPTCP WG charter.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>