Hello Stephen,

On 12/03/18 - 13:55:07, Stephen Brennan wrote:
> Thanks for the info, I think I understand the plan a lot better now!
> 
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 08:27:43PM -0700, Christoph Paasch wrote:
> > Hello Stephen,
> > 
> > On 08/03/18 - 15:46:29, Stephen Brennan wrote:
> > > Hi Ossama,
> > > 
> > > I'm very interested in the idea of a MPTCP path manager Netlink API, since
> > > I actually posted a patch on mptcp-dev recently containing a path manager
> > > which did send and receive some commands over a Netlink API. My API was not
> > > nearly as complete as this one, but it's nice to see that path management
> > > policy could move further into user-space. That certainly makes the sort of
> > > research I was working on a lot easier.
> > 
> > I saw your patches and will do a review soon.
> > 
> > > I do have some inline comments drawn from my experience, but first one
> > > question. Is the implementation strategy for the Netlink PM to simply be
> > > another path manager (selectable among the other path managers), or would
> > > it replace the other path managers in some way?
> > 
> > Long-term we definitely want to go away from having the kernel-moduled
> > path-managers. They were very useful when we had to write research papers,
> > but for upstreaming it's not a good design :)
> 
> How do you plan to handle schedulers? Given the good experimental results
> of the min-RTT-first scheduler, will that be the only option? Or will it
> remain as a kernel module due to the time-sensitive nature of scheduling?
> 
> I ask because I've found scheduling to be sometimes related to path
> management. For instance, the system I worked on in my thesis essentially
> routes subflows through proxies. A piece of future work we've been looking
> into has been to "explore" new proxies without risk of disrupting the
> connection due to packet loss. We would do this by only transmitting
> redundant data segments along the subflow being "explored".

I think there are two things to consider.

For the upstreaming effort, it makes sense to have the most simple and
(more importantly) cleanest solution for scheduling. At least initially,
that allows to target upstream submission without the complexity of the
more advanced schedulers (e.g., reinjection based on retransmission timeouts,...).
As use-cases become more clear, a upstream scheduler could then get changed
to accomodate those. As Alexander mentions, the BPF scheduler could indeed
be an interesting approach for upstream.

On the other hand, that shouldn't prevent research and experiments to go into the
multipath-tcp.org implementation, as long as it is clean and neatly fits
into the current framework (assuming that the submission is being
maintained by the researcher).


Christoph