Re: My BoF report: multipath
Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Fri, 23 October 2020 09:27 UTC
Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F863A0B05 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 02:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 lLSysWxfgLZ9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 02:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C41A3A0B02 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 02:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id w27so1445747ejb.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 02:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7kh8edIt3k7647M8P0mir4N1cXh0bqIIazIDYom/SBk=; b=k0Znx+zXFUnqNprOMdrCu04VV4FFkhciXVetgEhnbPbTt6GrbN9xtmCks9m+37MTAW SyE0g9GvJBz6X/JbBMrg+A8wkDfDbXmDt8vcq0WRA3/ElhJGNeW6GMhGHIzS9eAJJNjL egKTAk2biBgj+kmGFvf13U1OuqBOAgKO8AKLo2WADfo8GwtVZqmCB9kIQ4q7EXLzPt7u 0+EXdOYFT2eGIfvj1kzWU0W+ImbORXH5vxSLMu6dMy7vpzHyrcJh5Evb5KJ2kxgY+ctc sOK8H3m7K8eND6YYFuT7UE0cymsukIB4EWVGmujfQKnJhXLBw/FiDzsPFlZ5sCn9VWDx xDhw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7kh8edIt3k7647M8P0mir4N1cXh0bqIIazIDYom/SBk=; b=i97eg0P8qXSns+MPfkHA1yFtqVzZW+nAdCbTV4C2FPfufZggoQw5tuu8zPBUZQUF1j CMzPdIkL3HHxRNgyF/JKHwXQcegtYrd9gEg8cQGZauodPb5UGOhgFaU75mefo3evNUle /jBrmFHQYQFpGGR0gqmKC8OVWzp6RKSfAEvK21fA5zWVZaL4qkMpHFcj51toQt3dbNgE h7OENvzozkRvSdW08/yGuAWk88wIr28giU40p7PVsjWVT7XlFjkvwchpKViLpyec/rAB GDJhY13zchqjsOtaxBSnZaeXkUz7ddQV+3GKMeszViEZwvMhuCVmihfaMd5Z+YUrRixy H5kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5316U+bJvVY7qv2UiCgbPMmZYawBbP35ckkWqSrgewZxaTFdYbqh Jxu1QG2z+C13PVhfoR8shV80y22gTJgFvvI43zE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2HO/dir9WfDNNBelD72LbElplpUu9Y5Tc3rvrDQ4ymoePMLnmdj/UAbiHkj0R+6iyU9uvMeyclOrgzngbxzs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5249:: with SMTP id y9mr1146086ejm.440.1603445267824; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 02:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d84c82b1-fa67-4676-9ce2-d2a53d81b5f7@www.fastmail.com> <5741601d-7e67-898e-5840-70feceb994e9@uclouvain.be>
In-Reply-To: <5741601d-7e67-898e-5840-70feceb994e9@uclouvain.be>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:27:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZW0s6c6+N+3R8bD17yPBPQa4E_cVOaTOSNTVQPYy6sUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: My BoF report: multipath
To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009b042405b25331d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/JQ6nE_gqQMVxIT5HZDYESsB7lew>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:27:52 -0000
Posting as an individual. Thanks to the time that people took to prepare, present and discuss, I gained a better understanding of this area. One main takeaway for me is that thinking of QUIC v1 as singlepath puts it in an unfair box. Others, such as Jana, articulated this point better than I. QUIC is path independent, path aware and provides mechanisms, written in the core document, for endpoints to interact and interoperate about path-related things. Through the course of specification development things might have gone different, and we might be having a conversion now about whether the group should adopt a document that describes for instance just connection migration. But migration is in the core and, based on the Slack discussion following the interim, there appear to be several parties that have expressed an interest in testing deployments of Connection migration. This can be seen as some form of success. The use cases indicate that things like active-active paths or bandwidth aggregation are desirable. But I was unable to discern objectively how more of an optimal experience they would provide over a well tuned QUIC v1 endpoint that use connection migration. I encourage people to think about the charter goals for the QUIC protocol, what success looks like, and whether they think connection migration delivers a sufficiently good part of the multipath feature set that was vaguely described when we started off. Cheers Lucas >
- My BoF report: multipath Martin Thomson
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Christian Huitema
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Christian Huitema
- RE: My BoF report: multipath Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Lucas Pardue
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Lucas Pardue
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Roland Zink
- Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My BoF r… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Roland Zink
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Christian Huitema
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Eric Kinnear
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Lucas Pardue
- Re: My BoF report: multipath Jana Iyengar
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Eric Kinnear
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Ian Swett
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Ian Swett
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My B… Lucas Pardue