Problem Statement of MPTCP Transmission Feature Negotiation
draft-nagesh-mptcp-feature-negotiation-ps-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-11-04
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
MPTCP                                                         N. Shamnur
Internet-Draft                                                    Z. Cao
Intended status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: May 7, 2020                                    November 4, 2019

      Problem Statement of MPTCP Transmission Feature Negotiation
              draft-nagesh-mptcp-feature-negotiation-ps-01

Abstract

   Path manager and packet scheduler are two important components of
   MPTCP protocol and associated implementations.  Normally they are
   implemented and configured statically.  This draft discusses the
   scenarios where statically configured path manager and packet
   scheduler are not sufficient, and presents the cases that deserve the
   negotiation of these multipath transmission features which are
   currently not addressed by MPTCP.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Shamnur & Cao              Expires May 7, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        MPTCP feature negotiation ps         November 2019

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Current multipath transmission strategies . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Current practice to overcome this limitation  . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Problems with current method of tranmission strategies
           configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  Deployment scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.4.1.  Scheduler deployment scenario . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.4.2.  Path Manager deployment scenario  . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Requirements for multipath transmission negotiation
       strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Req#1: Flexiblity at each endpoint to implement
           propreitary algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Req#2: Flexiblity to be configured based on deployment
           network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Req#3: Flexiblity to be configured based on application
           used  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   MPTCP [RFC6824] [I-D.ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis] specifies the procedure
   of establishing multiple subflows to a connection and it also
   explains the procedures for path management.  There are various types
   of path manager that can be configured.  The selection of a
   particular path manager algorithm is however decided based on the
   deployment scenario and hence multiple options for the same are
   available.  Each end of the MPTCP connection needs to configure a
   path manager algorithm that would be used for a particular connection
   in isolation and would thus wouldn't know the path manager chosen on
   the remote side.  In certain cases, a combination of different types
   of configuration would be required to suit a particular deployment
   scenario.

   This limitiation is also true in the case of the scheduler as well.
   Since for every connection server based on its local policies selects
Show full document text