> 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 customers. If all > Internet servers supported MPTCP, they would not have had to deploy and > support the SOCKS servers in their network. > Olivier,
The benefits of using MPTCP are understood. The question is cost of this solution. As you mention above MPTCP requires client and server cooperation, but this solution requires cooperation between clients and middleboxes, and middlebox and server. The number of cooperating parties is not be reduced, and effectively turns TCP connection negotiation into a three-way negotiation. The server/middlebox interaction may be mostly transparent, but not the former. The clients and middlebox support requires new protocol which means new software needs to be deployed on clients and middleboxes. This takes time and engineering effort. And there are a lot more network carriers than there are significant content providers or client vendor, so that is more parties to deal with in deployment. Given this, please provide the details on why this path is going to be faster than working directly with the content providers to start support MPTCP. WIth the right motivation and effort, I believe that most major content providers could have good support for MPTCP within 3 years. What is your time and effort estimate for deploying this solution across all clients and bringing up the converter in a significant number of networks? Tom >> Also, the >> cost analysis should take into account any negative effects on nodes >> outside of the devices being touched-- this solution is not >> transparent to the outside world (similar to how NAT isn't really >> transparent to end hosts). > > > The negative effect is that the smartphone needs to include MPTCP and the > SOCKS client. The SOCKS server is a single-point of failure inside the ISP > network. It is not totally transparent since the smartphone needs to be > configured with a SOCKS server, but there are clear benefits since this kind > of solution is deployed by several ISPs in several countries. > > > Olivier
