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




>