* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Mptcp Status Pages

Multipath TCP (Active WG)
Tsv Area: Mirja Kühlewind, Spencer Dawkins | 2009-Oct-15 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-102 mptcp minutes

Session 2018-07-16 1550-1750: Saint-Paul/Sainte-Cath. - mptcp chatroom

Minutes

minutes-102-mptcp-00 minutes



          Multipath TCP (MPTCP)
          Meeting  : IETF102, Monday July 16, 2018, 15:50 - 17:50 (Afternoon
          session II)
          Location : Saint-Paul/Sainte-Catherine
          Chairs   : Philip Eardley
                     Yoshifumi Nishida
                     AD       : Mirja Kühlewind
                     URL      : http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/
                     Note Taker: Christoph Paasch, Xavier De Foy
          
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          1: WG Status - Chairs
          
             Yoshi:
                Any implementation news?
          
             Christoph:
                at Linux netdev conference, we presented MPTCP to the Linux
                networking community.
                Feedback was positive. Linux TCP maintainer is encouraging us to
                move forward.
          
             Phil:
                Thanks Christoph and colleagues at Intel.
          
             Steven Fuerst:
                The F5 Big IP supports MPTCP on the client side.
          
             Yoshi:
                Any proxy work?
          
             Steven:
                By default, Big IP is a MPTCP proxy on the server side, not on
                the client side.
                We do MPTCP on the client-facing side. Regular TCP to the backend
                servers.
          
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          2: 6842bis update - Christoph Paasch
          
             Christoph:
                Latest update corresponds to the version 10 to 11 update.
                We removed experimental and moved TCP fast open to appendix (since
                TFO is experimental RFC only).
                WGLC is ongoing.  Added echo flag + echo flag to ADD_ADR for
                reliability.
                A question remains: can an attacker use the echo flag (since it
                is not protected by HMAC)
          
             Yoshi (from floor):
                an attacker would also need to steal some keys, so it should not
                be a problem.
          
             Christoph:
                agree, it should not be a problem.
          
             Christoph: another change:
                ID was removed from MP_PRIO in v9 because of a possible attack.
                Now Backup is indicated in the ADD_ADDR.
          
             Yoshi (from floor):
                agree with this suggestion.
          
             Phil:
                do you have the authorization to release the code.
          
             Christoph:
                will work on this this week, and will let you know.
          
             Xavier de Foy:
                what will happen to the experimental option?
          
             Christoph:
                need to check with Olivier, who removed it.
          
             Phil:
                only both chairs have agreed to review the document, are there
                any volunteers for more?
          
             Xavier and Rahul Jadhav will review the document and provide some
             comments
          
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          3: Considerations for MPTCP operation in 5G - Xavier de Foy
          
             Phil:
                Do you see any implications for MPTCP protocol? Does local MPTCP
                stack can handle by itself?
          
             Xavier:
                there may be a need to send session continuity type, for SSC mode
                3 server side MPTCP may need
                to use it for a graceful transition from first to second path.
          
             Phil: put a summary in the mailing list, what and why specific
             modifications are required for MPTCP?
                This could be part of the review of the bis draft.
          
             Mirja Kühlewind:
                Is it an interface issue or an implementation issue? Is it a
                local decision?
                Otherwise, how network will send information to client?
          
             Xavier:
                it may be local but there may be a need to transmit the session
                continuity type over MPTCP signaling.
          
             Yoshi:
                let's put this in an email and we can discuss it further.
          
             Chunshan Xiong:
                The way 3GPP is defining SSC mode works on IP layer. Why MPTCP
                is required?
                Should you propose it to IP related WG? This is a general issue
                and may be applied to all protocol.
                Referring back to 3GPP, Release 16, proposed lots of solutions
                for traffic steering over different RAT.
                For Dual Connectivity, L2 technology is proposed/being worked in
                3gpp. Do we need MPTCP?
          
             Christoph:
                Dual connectivity is complicated in downstream. Upstream is
                possible.
          
             Xavier:
                Kien (co-author) will likely address this issue in future updates.
          
             (Post-meeting note: this feature is probably not supported today and
             would need to be introduced in 3GPP,
             some form of traffic filtering possibly).
          
             Yoshi (from floor):
                SSC mode is determined in 5g network. Can application chose
                SSC mode?
                Clarification required about how this is chosen and propagated?
          
             (Post-meeting note: this will need to be clarified in draft).
          
          
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          4: Potential work items discussion
          
             Yoshi:
                any opinions on future topics?
          
             Zhen Cao:
                Is there any timeline?
          
             Yoshi:
                not at this moment, but, we might skip a few meetings until some
                topics are proposed.
          
             Zhen Cao:
                will the list of topics become charter items?
          
             Phil: we need a community of interest, not one person, this is the
             selection criteria.
          
             Zhen:
                do we need draft to accompany this list?
          
             Phil:
                no, you just need to express a need/interest on the mailing list.
          
             Mirja:
                we may also just close the working group - there is no need to
                re-charter. Maintenance work would go to TCPM.
          
             Christoph:
                people are busy deploying, this is why activity has come down.
                Also the level of activity in the meeting is location dependent
                (more active in Europe for example).
                We should wait a bit and see where it goes.
          
             Yoshi:
                what about APIs?
          
             Christoph:
                the IETF not the place for API standardization. How to expose
                MPTCP to user space.
          
             Mirja:
                you should still work on MPTCP, there will be a place in the IETF,
                for example in TCPM.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/mptcp/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -