Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Multipath TCP Address advertisement 3/5 - Backup make after break

From: Alan Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:10:14 +0100

Following up from discussion at IETF98… Does anyone else wish to voice support for this proposal?

> On 15 Aug 2016, at 22:03, Christoph Paasch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Fabien Duchêne <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> As agreed in Berlin during IETF96, I'm sending a series of emails to
>> discuss the different contributions proposed in:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duchene-mptcp-add-addr/
>> 
>> This is the part 3/5 : Backup make after break.
>> 
>> There are use cases where hosts would prefer to establish an additional
>> subflow only after the failure of the initial one.
>> This would correspond to a break-before-make scenario. Multipath TCP did
>> not select between break-before-make and make-before-break.
>> We propose to support this distinction by adding the "B" (for backup)
>> flag in the ADD_ADDR option.
>> When set, this flag would indicate that the announced address should
>> only be used to establish subflows if all the subflows established with
>> addresses without the B flag have failed.
> 
> +1 on this proposal!
> 
> 
> Christoph
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>