On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:21:18PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I also don't know why it would be bad.
>
> My other question is, what happens in MPTCP is one path is significantly
> faster (or less lossy) than the other path? Won't the window open up
> significantly on that path and simply
Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> This is Mirja's Discuss thread, and MPTCP is her working group, and
> she knows MPTCP better than I do, but I'm confused about one thing, as
> I'm reading this discussion ...
...
> If I'm understanding the
Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> see below.
>> Am 01.02.2018 um 16:31 schrieb Michael Richardson :
>>
>>
>> Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
>>> Why does your case 2 need an MPTCP connection instead of just
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 05:14:58PM +0100, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> > If all data-plane flows fail, then it might suspend traffic.
>
> That will not happen with MPTCP; it will fail back to use the ACP connection
> (if there is a subflow for it).
Right. This is one of the pieces that i
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:46:14PM -0600, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> I do see the due diligence (she's a diligent AD), but I thought Mirja was
> (also?) concerned that the draft was assuming that MPTCP could be made to
> handle two paths in failover mode, when it actually doesn't work that
Hi, Toerless,
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:14:54PM -0600, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> > This is Mirja's Discuss thread, and MPTCP is her working group, and she
> > knows MPTCP better than I do, but I'm confused about
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:14:54PM -0600, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> This is Mirja's Discuss thread, and MPTCP is her working group, and she
> knows MPTCP better than I do, but I'm confused about one thing, as I'm
> reading this discussion ...
>
[...]
> If I'm understanding the
Inline
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> HI Toerless,
>
> thanks so much for these edits. Unfortunately I have one more question. And
> sorry again for the delay.
>
> Why does your case 2 need an MPTCP connection instead of just opening a
> second
This is Mirja's Discuss thread, and MPTCP is her working group, and she
knows MPTCP better than I do, but I'm confused about one thing, as I'm
reading this discussion ...
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> see below.
>
> > Am
HI Toerless,
thanks so much for these edits. Unfortunately I have one more question. And
sorry again for the delay.
Why does your case 2 need an MPTCP connection instead of just opening a second
separate TCP data plan connection (that of course fails when it fails..)?
Mirja
> Am 27.01.2018
Hello,
We are currently 8 "co-authors" for this draft.
My preferences, in priority order, are:
1) Michael as Editor, all other authors listed as authors, no
contributors.
2) Michael as Editor, all other authors listed as contributors.
Given how this document originated and has
11 matches
Mail list logo