Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1.5 talks about use of MPTCP: "DNS naming is set up to provide the ACP IPv6 address of network devices. Unbeknownst to the application, MPTCP is used. MPTCP mutually discovers between the NOC and network device the data-plane address and caries all traffic across it when that MPTCP subflow across the data-plane can be built." However, I'm actually uncertain how this is supposed to work and what "Unbeknownst to the application" should mean. If another address should be signaled to the other host, this needs to be indicated by the application or at least some kind of policy framework above MPTCP. Also MPTCP will by default use both paths simultaneously while still looking like one connection to the application, meaning the application has no control which path is used for which traffic. I guess you can open a second subflow and then configure the first subflow as backup path but I'm not sure if that's what you want (given the application/policy framework will still not know which path is used)..? Please provide more information about what the expected usage scenario is here. _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
