Re: [iccrg] Bufferbloat and Congestion Control

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 3/31/2017 7:47 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: >> One full size packet @ 1mbps == 13 milliseconds. > That sort of blocking is its own problem and the only solution is to use > smaller packets. > > It can be solved at TCP by pushing

Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > I've noted this before, but to share with other areas: > > Although I'm not averse to middleboxes as optional optimizations, I find > the proposed mechanisms aren't quite optional -- they inject option > information

Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:46 AM, wrote: > Hi Erik, > > That's the intuitive approach to follow but unfortunately the situation is > not that obvious to get into. > I can give a little background on the Linux situation. There have been several attempts to get MPTCP

Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:26 AM, wrote: > Re-, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -Message d'origine- >> De : Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] >> Envoyé : jeudi 20 juillet 2017 16:37 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Olivier Bonaventure; Internet

Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:37 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -Message d'origine- >> De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Tom Herbert >> Envoyé : me

Re: Progressing the MPTCP proxy work

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:01 AM, wrote: > Hi, > > At the IETF we discussed (in MPTCP WG) a new proposal on MPTCP proxy, “0-RTT > TCP converters” > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bonaventure-mptcp-converters This seemed > to get a good reception, and had taken on board

Re: [multipathtcp] Progressing the MPTCP proxy work

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote: > Tom, >> >> >> I disagree, discussions about deployment and implementation are in >> scope. The primary argument for necessity that this draft makes is >> that MPTCP is being deployed too slowly. > > >

Re: [multipathtcp] Progressing the MPTCP proxy work

> From the viewpoint of the enduser, there is a benefit in using MPTCP on her > smartphone because she can combine LTE and WiFi to achieve higher bandwidth > or have seamless handovers. From the viewpoint of the network operator, this > is an added value service that they provide to their

Re: [multipathtcp] Progressing the MPTCP proxy work

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Only a few companies can control both client and server sides. > However, ISPs might be able to control the STB at the client side and the > middleboxes in their networks. > This may be a relatively

Re: [multipathtcp] Progressing the MPTCP proxy work

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote: > Tom, > > Thanks for your comments. > >> For #1 the assumption, the key assertion in the draft is "There are >> some situations where the transport stack used on clients (resp. >> servers) can be

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 1:56 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > I recall you're mentioning NAT before. It fell into a crack and I > lost sight of it. > > You bring up an interesting point, it goes to the motivation for > wanting to do keepalives in the first place. The text doesn't > yet

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Tom, > > > >> Kent, I'm not sure what the context of formal text is. Is this write up >> going > >> to be in an I-D, or is it intended to be published by some other >> mechanism? > > > > That is a good question. At first, we were thinking

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> They are already on, TCP has a default keepalive for 2 hrs. The issue > > > http://tldp.org/HOWTO/TCP-Keepalive-HOWTO/usingkeepalive.html says: > > "Remem

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:44 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > > > On 16 Aug 2018, at 09:28, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Kent Watsen wrote: > > You bring up an interesting point, it goes to the motivation for wanting to > do keepalives in the first place. The text doesn't

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > > On 2018-08-17 09:05, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > ... > It's not subtle. There's no way to know whether keepalives at a higher level > have any desi

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > >> On Aug 16, 2018, at 3:57 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 03:52:54PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote > >>> >>> On Aug 16, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>> > Keepalives at a layer SHOULD NOT be interpreted as

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 2018-08-17 14:13, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > If you KNOW that the app keepalive will cause the TCP transmission, sure - > but how do you KNOW that?

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > > On 2018-08-17 11:43, Tom Herbert wrote:The purpose of an application keep > alive is not to do favors for TCP, > > it's to verify the end to end liveness between application end points. > This is at a m

Re: statement regarding keepalives

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 7:40 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF < spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Mikael, > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:48 AM Mikael Abrahamsson > wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> While I agree with the sentiment here, I have personally been in >> positions >> where application

Re: Draft agenda uploaded

om > > Mirja > >> Am 07.03.2018 um 17:56 schrieb Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>: >> >> >> >> On Mar 7, 2018 8:16 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <i...@kuehlewind.net> >> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> we plan to have a

Re: Draft agenda uploaded

On Mar 7, 2018 8:16 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" wrote: Hi all, we plan to have a short (1h) TSV area meeting in London and are scheduled for tsvarea Session 1 (1:00:00) Monday, Afternoon Session III 1740-1840 Room Name: Sandringham size: 300 We just uploaded the