Hi everyone, Thanks for the great conversation yesterday. Thinking about it more, I'm realizing I might be misunderstanding something: why does ATSSS need MPQUIC at all? Why not simply use two separate QUIC connections, one per interface? The only difference is that the scheduler would live right on top of QUIC instead of inside QUIC. If I recall the history of MPTCP correctly, the scheduler was placed in the kernel because of the cost of context switching from userspace to kernelspace. This consideration doesn't apply to QUIC since most QUIC implementations are in userspace. I'll note that for this to work, we'd need a way to transmit path information - that could use a separate protocol, or a small extension to QUIC - but either way that sounds like much less complexity than MPQUIC.
Thanks, David
