Hello

can you please help me about this issue?

On Thursday, 12 June 2014, 1:40, Md.Nur= Alamgir Shahin <forbiddenthirst_ece@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello

I = am trying to compile MPTCP with Linux Kernel 3.3.6

=0A=0A=0A=0A

but i didn't find any patch or kernel source for this=0Aversion. Is t= here any patch for 3.3.6 Linux kernel or kernel source for this=0Aversion?<= /div>

<= /html> --2092480568-931616987-1402731935=:84713-- From nobody Sun Jun 15 04:38:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B411A03EC for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjnDaG7-R5N0 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205561A038C for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hn18so1966125igb.5 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=10u8ORtIJtYiDIk55fhXGm9jPnIp+L958KIch352jeo=; b=BP6Qa7mCyBIrD8sAsTKqTY/NxTE18dezRzg4Z5dxgaqAP9eje751HkaWm4B0zZuAtE zzCv/t3l0nXrOwQm09UtZDSi8KJOOQzRYqVcag4s21waf/fs6Spk++AhednQruUfj1o9 6dSBVJvGrZBYOUDzksT4YZVJ432VnUnk3dJ/3Sj0cde+thMkGxLQCMEnmle3rEUecUIT nVP/fbvB4ZRJeSwwjXr456e6eaQNj8D55rkvYdGfMSpAJzzOEp0NtzNFaeuDaW67ddIZ jJ7DZqn59IijGrl+Uzj4zI3m0gMz4Yo3aUfB6twj7kc4HasORLqxpcI05eBzUXIIq+Go SZBw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.164 with SMTP id k4mr18152373igx.3.1402832277498; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.78.69 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:07:57 +0530 Message-ID: From: Abhishek Verma To: multipathtcp@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0129478494707504fbde5756 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/UNSqgihkS2p_BHR3UpBlyu5MbR4 Subject: [multipathtcp] MPTCP for faster FTP connections X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:37:59 -0000 --089e0129478494707504fbde5756 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Can i use MPTCP for faster FTP? Is there any study on how MPTCP fares against say a protocol like gridFTP? Thanks, Abhishek --089e0129478494707504fbde5756 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

Can i use MPTCP for faster FTP? Is there any study on how MPTCP fares against say a protocol like gridFTP?

Thanks, Abhishek

--089e0129478494707504fbde5756-- From nobody Mon Jun 16 13:26:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934EA1A01F3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKAcZK1IHgf1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B7A1A01C8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E221F278120 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:26:04 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 10so2310099lbg.15 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.205.135 with SMTP id lg7mr3047363lbc.52.1402950362259; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.95.101 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1402731935.84713.YahooMailNeo@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1402515646.9119.YahooMailNeo@web121902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1402731935.84713.YahooMailNeo@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:26:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: Yoshifumi Nishida To: "Md.Nur Alamgir Shahin" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c9e0fae9d504fbf9d519 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/GnorE6pGyQbMuAIRcJMcu3JYjLA Cc: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Kernel Compile X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:26:08 -0000 --001a11c3c9e0fae9d504fbf9d519 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, You might want to check this ML for linux specific questions https://listes-2.sipr.ucl.ac.be/sympa/info/mptcp-dev Thanks, -- Yoshi On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Md.Nur Alamgir Shahin < forbiddenthirst_ece@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello > can you please help me about this issue? > > > On Thursday, 12 June 2014, 1:40, Md.Nur Alamgir Shahin < > forbiddenthirst_ece@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hello > I am trying to compile MPTCP with Linux Kernel 3.3.6 > but i didn't find any patch or kernel source for this version. Is there > any patch for 3.3.6 Linux kernel or kernel source for this version? > > > > _______________________________________________ > multipathtcp mailing list > multipathtcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp > > --001a11c3c9e0fae9d504fbf9d519 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

You might want to check this ML for linux specific= questions

https://listes-2.sipr.ucl.= ac.be/sympa/info/mptcp-dev

Thanks,

Yoshi

On Sat, Jun 14, 2= 014 at 12:45 AM, Md.Nur Alamgir Shahin <forbiddenthirst_ece@ya= hoo.com> wrote:

Hello
can you please help me abou= t this issue?

=

On Thursday, 12 June 2014, 1:40, M= d.Nur Alamgir Shahin <forbiddenthirst_ece@yahoo.com> wrote:
<= /div>

Hello
I am trying to compile MPTCP= with Linux Kernel 3.3.6

but i didn't find any patch or kernel source for this version. Is there any patch for 3.3.6 Linux kernel or kernel source for thi= s version?

_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

--001a11c3c9e0fae9d504fbf9d519-- From nobody Mon Jun 16 13:27:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF5C1A01D1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sod2IyLPfXre for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C42D1A00DA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD3BF278129 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:27:52 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p9so1130698lbv.12 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.203.168 with SMTP id kr8mr15479013lac.17.1402950470012; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.95.101 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:27:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Yoshifumi Nishida To: Abhishek Verma Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113457dc67149404fbf9dc44 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/Gn_cXG6ZLmSLkq-1ZP1QGe8wIUI Cc: multipathtcp Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] MPTCP for faster FTP connections X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:27:56 -0000 --001a113457dc67149404fbf9dc44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Abhishek, I've interpreted this question that how the coupled congestion control used in MPTCP works. This is the key difference between using subflows in MPTCP and using multiple TCP flows. You might want to check the references for MPTCP made by UCL folks. http://multipath-tcp.org/pmwiki.php/Researchers/References -- Yoshi On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Abhishek Verma wrote: > Hi, > > Can i use MPTCP for faster FTP? Is there any study on how MPTCP fares > against say a protocol like gridFTP? > > Thanks, Abhishek > > _______________________________________________ > multipathtcp mailing list > multipathtcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp > > --001a113457dc67149404fbf9dc44 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Abhishek,

I've interpreted this question that h= ow the coupled congestion control used in MPTCP works. This is the key diff= erence between using subflows in MPTCP and using multiple TCP flows.

You might want to check the references for MPTCP made by UCL folks.

http://multipath-tcp.org/p= mwiki.php/Researchers/References

Yoshi

On Sun, Jun= 15, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Abhishek Verma <abhishekv.verma@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Can i use MPTCP fo= r faster FTP? Is there any study on how MPTCP fares against say a protocol = like gridFTP?

Thanks, Abhishek

_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

--001a113457dc67149404fbf9dc44-- From nobody Mon Jun 23 02:35:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435371B2A2D for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 02:35:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoNBAvckbQoR for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 02:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD6141B2A35 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 02:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806BC9D2C34 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:35:50 +0200 (CEST) X-uc3m-safe: yes X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [192.168.43.202] (10.7.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es [37.132.7.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp03.uc3m.es) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D34A71515474 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:35:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53A7F0B2.7010505@it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:17:38 +0200 From: marcelo bagnulo braun User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multipathtcp@ietf.org References:

In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1017-20774.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--31.616-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--31.616-7.0-31-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/LM7_UDM5-rMJyYGcc23-p97g21w Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] WGLC for draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:35:56 -0000 Hi, sorry for the dealy in replying. Thanks for the comments, replies below. El 02/04/14 09:54, Yoshifumi Nishida escribi�: > Hi, I have read draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00.txt. > Please check my comments below. Also, please point out if I miss something. > > > Technical Comments: > > 1: As described in Section 7, we have an intention to archive the same > security level as RFC5061. > However, if we adopt 1) enhancement, the security level will be > lower than this. Hence, I think we cannot recommend this. > > Similarly, if MPTCP MUST work through NATs, I think we cannot > recommend 3) and 4) enhancements. > From these reasons, I'm wondering if we really need to have 1), 3) > and 4) enhancements in Section 2.1. > At least, I prefer to have some texts that they are not recommended > in order to be consistent. ok, i added the following text at the end of section 2.1 Out of the 4 options described above, option 2 is recommended as it achieves a higher security level while preserving the required functionality (i.e. NAT compatibility). > 2: In 2) enhancement in section 2.1, it seems that HMAC will be > created with the key of the receiver of the ADDR_ADDR message. > Is there any reason that the key of the sender is not used here? I > think the HMAC in MP_JOIN uses both keys. The idea is to use the same key as used in the JOIN. I rephrased it to: To include the HMAC of the address contained in the ADD_ADDR option concatenated with the key of the receiver and the key of the sender (in the same way they are used for generating the HMAC of the JOIN message) of the ADD-ADDR message. > > 3: In 3) enhancement in section 2.1, I might miss something, but I > couldn't see the security benefits to include the destination address > of the message in the HMAC as attackers can get this info. Right, i got mixed up, i meant the address in the ADD addr that is alreayd in option 2, i will remove this option > 4: In 4) enhancement in section 2.1, I'm not sure why we want to > utilize MP_JOIN message here. > I think you might want to put more texts here. the attack described requires the rewriting of the dest address in the mp join to work, so protecting it would solve the problem > 5: In Section 5, 5 possible enhancements include TCPCrypt are simply listed. > However, in Section 7, it is mentioned that TCPCrypt seems a > promising one. Is there any reason behind this? Right, the text states the securing the payload seems the right way to go as it is compatible with nats. of the approaches suggested, only tcpcrypt and ssl secure the payload (but ssl was not mentioned) i changed the text to include the ssl approach int he promising ones, makes sense? > > Editorial Comments: > > 1: Section 3, I think we don't need to put '?' in the threat level. > Also, it seems that "(as it is hard..)" sentence is not necessary > as it is described in the description. ok > > 2: Section 3, "This, because" -> This is because ok > 3: Section 4.1, "(like 3)" -> I think you mean "(as described in Section 3.1)" no, i meant 3 subflows, i made that explicit > 4: Section 6.1, NATS -> NATs ok > 5: Section 7, SCPT -> SCTP ok > > 6: Section 7, "Security enhancements for MPTCP" -> I think this is > subsection title. If so, please provide the section number. ok I will submit a new version with these changes. Regards, marcelo > Regards, > -- > Yoshi > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> As mentioned in the London meeting, we start WGLC on draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks. >> The WGLC will run until * April 14th *. The intended status of the >> document is Informational. >> >> Please provide your feedback to the ML before the deadline. >> The draft is available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00 >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Yoshi & Phil > _______________________________________________ > multipathtcp mailing list > multipathtcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp > From nobody Mon Jun 23 15:15:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EFF1B2D0D for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:15:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BR2Zby4B1Gjm for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtpe1.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85211B2B23 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHT64-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.101) by RDW083A006ED62.bt.com (10.187.98.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:15:57 +0100 Received: from EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.2.112]) by EVMHT64-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.101]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:15:49 +0100 From: To: , Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:15:48 +0100 Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] meeting in Toronto Thread-Index: Ac+DuGqmAyksWMkcRaOHZykY5rMT4wLd3JN5 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D411910B59FEMV67UKRDdoma_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/jZ81-_LheY9BhEo1FPOZ_F_fJEg Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] meeting in Toronto X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:15:54 -0000 --_000_A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D411910B59FEMV67UKRDdoma_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable on the draft agenda, we have a slot on Monday afternoon Monday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 phil ________________________________ From: multipathtcp [multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoshifumi N= ishida [nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp] Sent: 09 June 2014 08:56 To: multipathtcp Subject: [multipathtcp] meeting in Toronto Hi folks, I just let you know Phil and I have requested 1 two hours meeting slot in T= oronto. We are not very sure if we can get what we have requested for now, but I ju= st would like to inform this in case you are preparing something for the me= eting. Thanks, -- Yoshi & Phil --_000_A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D411910B59FEMV67UKRDdoma_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

on the draft agenda, we have a slot on Monday afternoon

Monday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500

phil

From: multipathtc= p [multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoshifumi Nishida [nishida@s= fc.wide.ad.jp]
Sent: 09 June 2014 08:56
To: multipathtcp
Subject: [multipathtcp] meeting in Toronto

Hi folks,

I just let you know Phil and I have requested 1 two hours meeting slot= in Toronto.

We are not very sure if we can get what we have requested for now, but= I just would like to inform this in case you are preparing something for t= he meeting.

Thanks,

Yoshi & Phil

--_000_A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D411910B59FEMV67UKRDdoma_-- From nobody Mon Jun 23 22:05:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0E01B282B for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SbDbiw0pPfm7 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803::53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 836571B27D0 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2034F27814D for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:05:43 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 10so5846999lbg.1 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.51.37 with SMTP id h5mr19179513lbo.24.1403586341475; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.95.101 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53A7F0B2.7010505@it.uc3m.es> References:

<53A7F0B2.7010505@it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: Yoshifumi Nishida To: marcelo bagnulo braun Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b16e4b9ef204fc8de990 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/S9KwlWABX387Mvklo1-zL77jtss Cc: multipathtcp Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] WGLC for draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:05:49 -0000 --001a1133b16e4b9ef204fc8de990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Marcelo, OK. I think the texts you propose make sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, -- Yoshi On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:17 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Hi, > > sorry for the dealy in replying. > Thanks for the comments, replies below. > > > El 02/04/14 09:54, Yoshifumi Nishida escribi=C3=B3: > >> Hi, I have read draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00.txt. >> >> Please check my comments below. Also, please point out if I miss >> something. >> >> >> Technical Comments: >> >> 1: As described in Section 7, we have an intention to archive the same >> security level as RFC5061. >> However, if we adopt 1) enhancement, the security level will be >> lower than this. Hence, I think we cannot recommend this. >> >> Similarly, if MPTCP MUST work through NATs, I think we cannot >> recommend 3) and 4) enhancements. >> From these reasons, I'm wondering if we really need to have 1), 3) >> and 4) enhancements in Section 2.1. >> At least, I prefer to have some texts that they are not recommended >> in order to be consistent. >> > > ok, i added the following text at the end of section 2.1 > > > Out of the 4 options described above, option 2 is recommended as it > achieves a higher security level while > preserving the required functionality (i.e. NAT compatibility). > > > 2: In 2) enhancement in section 2.1, it seems that HMAC will be >> created with the key of the receiver of the ADDR_ADDR message. >> Is there any reason that the key of the sender is not used here? I >> think the HMAC in MP_JOIN uses both keys. >> > > The idea is to use the same key as used in the JOIN. > > I rephrased it to: > > To include the HMAC of the address contained in the ADD_ADDR option > concatenated with the key > of the receiver and the key of the sender (in the same way they are used > for generating the HMAC of the JOIN message) > of the ADD-ADDR message. > > > >> 3: In 3) enhancement in section 2.1, I might miss something, but I >> couldn't see the security benefits to include the destination address >> of the message in the HMAC as attackers can get this info. >> > > Right, i got mixed up, i meant the address in the ADD addr that is alreay= d > in option 2, i will remove this option > > 4: In 4) enhancement in section 2.1, I'm not sure why we want to >> utilize MP_JOIN message here. >> I think you might want to put more texts here. >> > the attack described requires the rewriting of the dest address in the mp > join to work, so protecting it would solve the problem > > > > 5: In Section 5, 5 possible enhancements include TCPCrypt are simply >> listed. >> However, in Section 7, it is mentioned that TCPCrypt seems a >> promising one. Is there any reason behind this? >> > > Right, the text states the securing the payload seems the right way to go > as it is compatible with nats. of the approaches suggested, only tcpcrypt > and ssl secure the payload (but ssl was not mentioned) i changed the text > to include the ssl approach int he promising ones, makes sense? > > > >> Editorial Comments: >> >> 1: Section 3, I think we don't need to put '?' in the threat level. >> Also, it seems that "(as it is hard..)" sentence is not necessary >> as it is described in the description. >> > > ok > > >> 2: Section 3, "This, because" -> This is because >> > > ok > > > 3: Section 4.1, "(like 3)" -> I think you mean "(as described in Section >> 3.1)" >> > no, i meant 3 subflows, i made that explicit > > > 4: Section 6.1, NATS -> NATs >> > > ok > > > 5: Section 7, SCPT -> SCTP >> > > ok > > > >> 6: Section 7, "Security enhancements for MPTCP" -> I think this is >> subsection title. If so, please provide the section number. >> > > ok > > I will submit a new version with these changes. > > Regards, marcelo > > > Regards, >> -- >> Yoshi >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As mentioned in the London meeting, we start WGLC on >>> draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks. >>> The WGLC will run until * April 14th *. The intended status of the >>> document is Informational. >>> >>> Please provide your feedback to the ML before the deadline. >>> The draft is available at: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00 >>> >>> Regards, >>> -- >>> Yoshi & Phil >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> multipathtcp mailing list >> multipathtcp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp >> >> > _______________________________________________ > multipathtcp mailing list > multipathtcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp > --001a1133b16e4b9ef204fc8de990 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marcelo,

OK. I think the texts you p= ropose make sense to me.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,

Yoshi

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:17 AM, marcelo bag= nulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:

Hi,

sorry for the dealy in replying.
Thanks for the comments, replies below.

El 02/04/14 09:54, Yoshifumi Nishida escribi=C3=B3:

Hi, I have read draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00.txt.

Please check my comments below. Also, please point out if I miss something.=

Technical Comments:

1: As described in Section 7, we have an intention to archive the same
security level as RFC5061.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 However, if we adopt 1) enhancement, the security level will = be
lower than this. Hence, I think we cannot recommend this.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Similarly, if MPTCP MUST work through NATs, I think we cannot=
recommend 3) and 4) enhancements.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 From these reasons, I'm wondering if we really need to ha= ve 1), 3)
and 4) enhancements in Section 2.1.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 At least, I prefer to have some texts that they are not recom= mended
in order to be consistent.

ok, i added the following text at the end of section 2.1

<t>Out of the 4 options described above, option 2 is recommended as i= t achieves a higher security level while
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 preserving the required functionality (i.e. NAT compatibility= ).</t>

2: In 2) enhancement in section 2.1, it seems that HMAC will be
created with the key of the receiver of the ADDR_ADDR message.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Is there any reason that the key of the sender is not used he= re? I
think the HMAC in MP_JOIN uses both keys.

The idea is to use the same key as used in the JOIN.

I rephrased it to:

To include the HMAC of the address contained in the ADD_ADDR option concate= nated with the key
of the receiver and the key of the sender (in the same way they are used fo= r generating the HMAC of the JOIN message)
of the ADD-ADDR message.

3: In 3) enhancement in section 2.1, I might miss something, but I
couldn't see the security benefits to include the destination address of the message in the HMAC as attackers can get this info.

Right, i got mixed up, i meant the address in the ADD addr that is alreayd = in option 2, i will remove this option

4: In 4) enhancement in section 2.1, I'm not sure why we want to
utilize MP_JOIN message here.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I think you might want to put more texts here.

the attack described requires the rewriting of the dest address in the mp j= oin to work, so protecting it would solve the problem

5: In Section 5, 5 possible enhancements include TCPCrypt are simply listed= .
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 However, in Section 7, it is mentioned that TCPCrypt seems a<= br> promising one. Is there any reason behind this?

Right, the text states the securing the payload seems the right way to go a= s it is compatible with nats. of the approaches suggested, only tcpcrypt an= d ssl secure the payload (but ssl was not mentioned) i changed the text to = include the ssl approach int he promising ones, makes sense?

Editorial Comments:

1: Section 3, I think we don't need to put '?' in the threat le= vel.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Also, it seems that "(as it is hard..)" sentence is= not necessary
as it is described in the description.

ok

2: Section 3, "This, because" -> This is because

ok

3: Section 4.1, "(like 3)" -> I think you mean "(as descr= ibed in Section 3.1)"

no, i meant 3 subflows, i made that explicit

4: Section 6.1, NATS -> NATs

ok

5: Section 7, SCPT -> SCTP

ok

6: Section 7, "Security enhancements for MPTCP" -> I think thi= s is
subsection title. If so, please provide the section number.

ok

I will submit a new version with these changes.

Regards, marcelo

Regards,
--
Yoshi

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida
<nishida@sfc= .wide.ad.jp> wrote:

Hello,

As mentioned in the London meeting, we start WGLC on draft-ietf-mptcp-attac= ks.
The WGLC will run until * April 14th *. The intended status of the
document is Informational.

Please provide your feedback to the ML before the deadline.
The draft is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-00

Regards,
--
Yoshi & Phil

_______________________________________________

multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

_______________________________________________
multipathtcp mailing list
multipathtcp@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

--001a1133b16e4b9ef204fc8de990-- From nobody Mon Jun 23 22:59:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F20B1B283F; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:59:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QyVHUL_a3vvg; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70ECE1B2836; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:59:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.5.0.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140624055921.22613.1473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:59:21 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/TFgYuD-gUXxhCAe14ZSpNBnqj5I Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org Subject: [multipathtcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01.txt X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:59:27 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Multipath TCP Working Group of the IETF. Title : Analysis of MPTCP residual threats and possible fixes Authors : Marcelo Bagnulo Christoph Paasch Fernando Gont Olivier Bonaventure Costin Raiciu Filename : draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2014-06-23 Abstract: This documents performs an analysis of the residual threats for MPTCP and explores possible solutions to them. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Jun 24 23:26:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA581B2AEC for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.573 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x4OloKLlsJJ7 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 372261B2AEB for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFBD52780C3 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:26:42 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id s7so1507056lbd.30 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.155.129 with SMTP id vw1mr3991778lbb.7.1403677600034; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.95.101 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:26:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Yoshifumi Nishida To: "philip.eardley" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/jTMzrBBdI8GIyPjSQ6-WA9sVi24 Cc: multipathtcp Subject: [multipathtcp] Agenda for Tronto meeting X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:26:45 -0000 Hi, If you're planning to present something at the meeting, please provide chairs the following info. 1: presenter's name 2: title 3: length of the presentation BTW, please note that the current schedule is still preliminary and might be changed for some reasons. Thanks, -- Yoshi & Phil On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, wrote: > > on the draft agenda, we have a slot on Monday afternoon > Monday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 > > phil > > ________________________________ > From: multipathtcp [multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoshifumi Nishida [nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp] > Sent: 09 June 2014 08:56 > > To: multipathtcp > Subject: [multipathtcp] meeting in Toronto > > Hi folks, > > I just let you know Phil and I have requested 1 two hours meeting slot in Toronto. > We are not very sure if we can get what we have requested for now, but I just would like to inform this in case you are preparing something for the meeting. > > Thanks, > -- > Yoshi & Phil > > From nobody Thu Jun 26 08:47:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951241B28AC; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YuIG87xhcCfV; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout.uni-due.de (mailout.uni-due.de [132.252.185.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5252F1B28C1; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nordmarka.simula.nornet ([158.39.4.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailout.uni-due.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s5QEnnGQ006053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:49:49 +0200 From: Thomas Dreibholz To: rserpool@ietf.org, vnfpool@ietf.org, multipathtcp@ietf.org Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <2186115.N5OmrUa8xZ@nordmarka.simula.nornet> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.2 (Linux/3.13.0-29-generic; KDE/4.13.2; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Virus-Scanned: Clam Anti Virus - http://www.clamav.net X-Spam-Scanned: SpamAssassin: 3.002004 - http://www.spamassassin.org X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 132.252.185.19 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/cmYVsIyibB7t-cakUUHXBelEvXg Subject: [multipathtcp] Call for Papers of the PAMS 2015 X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:47:00 -0000 We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. CALL FOR PAPERS The 5th International Workshop on Protocols and Applications with Multi= -Homing=20 Support (PAMS 2015) In conjunction with the 29th IEEE International Conference on Advanced=20= Information Networking and Applications (AINA 2015) March 24-27, 2015 in Gwangju/South Korea https://simula.no/pams-2015 The intent of our workshop is to bring together people from research an= d industry, in order to provide a discussion forum for state-of-the-art t= opics related to multi-homing on Network, Transport, Session and Application = Layers. The PAMS workshop will include full-paper sessions as well as a poster = session (with short presentations) to introduce preliminary ideas as well as wo= rk in progress. Workshops proceedings will be published by the IEEE CS Conference Publi= shing Service and will be included in the Digital Library. The main topics to be addressed include (but are not limited to): * Network Resilience by Multi-Homing * Network Architectures for Multi-Homed Systems * Performance Evaluation of Multi-Homed Systems * Deployment of Multi-Homed Protocols in Existing Networks with Middleboxes * Design and Implementation of Multi-Homed Systems * Testbeds for Multi-Homed Systems * Load Sharing and Load Balancing for Multi-Homed Systems * Mobility for Multi-Homed Systems * Protocols with Multi-Homing Support * Congestion and Flow Control of Multi-Homed Systems * Quality of Service for Multi-Homed Systems * Multi-Homing for Interconnection Networks * Security of Multi-Homed Systems * Application Deployment and Support for Legacy Applications * Cross-Layer Optimisation for Multi-Homed Systems * Multi-Homing in the Context of the Future Internet GENERAL CHAIRS: * Thomas Dreibholz, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway * Hakim Adhari, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany PUBLICITY CHAIRS: * Glenford Mapp, Middlesex University, United Kingdom * Xing Zhou, Hainan University, China PROGRAM COMMITTEE * Hakim Adhari, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany * Nicola Altan, ista International, Germany * =C4=B0lknur Ayd=C4=B1n, Farmingdale State College, U.S.A. * =C5=81ukasz Budzisz, Technische Universit=C3=A4t Berlin, Germany * Martin Becke, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany * Anna Brunstr=C3=B6m, Karlstad University, Sweden * Ahmed Elmokashfi, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway * Kristian Evensen, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway * Simone Ferlin, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway * Ernst Gunnar Gran, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway * Michio Honda, Keio University, Japan * Seok Joo Koh, Kyungpook National University, South Korea * Amund Kvalbein, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway * Glenford Mapp, Middlesex University, United Kingdom * Michael Menth, University of T=C3=BCbingen, Germany * Samuel Rodrigo Mocholi, Oracle, Norway * Preethi Natarajan, Cisco, U.S.A. * Jes=C3=BAs Escudero Sahuquillo, Oracle, Norway * Francisco Trivi=C3=B1o-Garc=C3=ADa, Oracle, Norway * Esbold Unurkhaan, Mongolian University of Science and Technology,= =20 Mongolia * Alan Wagner, University of British Columbia, Canada * Thomas Volkert, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany * Michael Welzl, University of Oslo, Norway * Xing Zhou, Hainan University, China IMPORTANT DATES * Paper Submission Deadline: October 1, 2014 * Author Notification: December 15, 2014 * Author Registration: January 15, 2015 * Camera-Ready Paper Submission: January 15, 2015 CONTACT For further information, please contact: * Thomas Dreibholz (dreibh@simula.no) * Hakim Adhari (hakim.adhari@uni-due.de) WEBSITE https://simula.no/pams-2015 From nobody Thu Jun 26 08:55:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A1F1B2AE4; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:55:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3WsCcZvyw-bd; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout.uni-due.de (mailout.uni-due.de [132.252.185.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2217E1B31CF; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nordmarka.simula.nornet ([158.39.4.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailout.uni-due.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s5QEuV1M006679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:56:32 +0200 From: Thomas Dreibholz To: multipathtcp@ietf.org, rserpool@ietf.org, vnfpool@ietf.org, iccrg@irtf.org Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:56:31 +0200 Message-ID: <3556831.DBPvtXT4N6@nordmarka.simula.nornet> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.2 (Linux/3.13.0-29-generic; KDE/4.13.2; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Virus-Scanned: Clam Anti Virus - http://www.clamav.net X-Spam-Scanned: SpamAssassin: 3.002004 - http://www.spamassassin.org X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 132.252.185.19 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/5I1ImpMMCa7X1QihHy3WUFN1YNw Subject: [multipathtcp] The 2nd NorNet Users Workshop (NNUW-2) X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:55:12 -0000 [Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message.] CALL FOR PARTICIPATION We cordially invite you to join us at: The 2nd International NorNet Users Workshop (NNUW-2) at the Simula Research Laboratory in Fornebu, Akershus/Norway August 28-29, 2014 https://www.nntb.no/workshops/nnuw-2/ The registration opens soon! Please register as early as possible. More than one year ago, the NorNet project has started with the intenti= on to=20 build up the world=E2=80=99s first large-scale network testbed for mul= ti-homed=20 systems. NorNet should provide researchers the possibility to perform=20= experiments in real-world wired and wireless setups. Now, the wired par= t =E2=80=93=20 denoted as NorNet Core =E2=80=93 as well as the wireless part =E2=80=93= denoted as NorNet Edge=20 =E2=80=93 have reached a stage that allows further researchers to start= running such=20 experiments. That is, currently 14 NorNet Core sites and more than 300 = NorNet=20 Edge nodes are ready to support your research ideas on resilience, mobi= lity,=20 security, multi-path transport and further subjects! This workshop intends to provide current as well as new and future NorN= et=20 users the possibility to get information about the NorNet testbed and i= nitial=20 research results, to discuss their ideas with the testbed developers an= d to=20 get the possibility for obtaining access to NorNet. Further details on the workshop are available at: https://www.nntb.no/workshops/nnuw-2/ An information sheet in PDF format can be found here: https://www.nntb.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NNUW-2-CallForParticipat= ion.pdf A detailed description of NorNet can be found at: https://www.nntb.no/ We are looking forward to see you in Fornebu! The NNUW-2 Organisers From nobody Fri Jun 27 10:41:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D871A04B0 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.573 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WPduIuFn-y5r for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96E651A03B4 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com (mail-lb0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C649A278207 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 02:41:19 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u10so4182005lbd.22 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.13.35 with SMTP id e3mr16697168lbc.44.1403890876887; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.95.101 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140624055921.22613.1473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140624055921.22613.1473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:41:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: Yoshifumi Nishida To: multipathtcp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/3AIa1fIyVnjZZxPj6NvL-75hFsU Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01.txt X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:41:24 -0000 Hi Authors, Thanks for the updates. The chairs think this is good shape. We announce the conclusion of the WGLC on this draft and will proceed to the next step. Regards, -- Yoshi and Phil On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:59 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Multipath TCP Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Analysis of MPTCP residual threats and possible fixes > Authors : Marcelo Bagnulo > Christoph Paasch > Fernando Gont > Olivier Bonaventure > Costin Raiciu > Filename : draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2014-06-23 > > Abstract: > This documents performs an analysis of the residual threats for MPTCP > and explores possible solutions to them. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mptcp-attacks-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > multipathtcp mailing list > multipathtcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp From nobody Sun Jun 29 18:34:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBE21A0086 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:34:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bw1123tk3fE8 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655E31A0080 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BGP74183; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 01:34:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:34:12 +0100 Received: from NKGEML507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.117]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:34:09 +0800 From: Weixinpeng To: "multipathtcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-wei-mptcp-proxy-mechanism-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHPlALYmb5O1q+mM0axTh9kUig+TJuI3hFQ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 01:34:08 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.76.176] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/XVk-HjFVrjjYgKFclmQ1dAojGEg Subject: [multipathtcp] New Version Notification for draft-wei-mptcp-proxy-mechanism-00.txt X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 01:34:16 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KQSBuZXcgZHJhZnQgYWJvdXQgTVBUQ1AgcHJveHkgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGhhdmUgYmVl biBzdWJtaXR0ZWQuIENvbW1lbnRzIGFyZSB3ZWxjb21lZC4NClRoYW5rcy4NCg0KQlIsDQotWGlu cGVuZw0KDQo+LS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj5Gcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFm dHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+U2VudDogTW9u ZGF5LCBKdW5lIDMwLCAyMDE0IDk6MzAgQU0NCj5UbzogWGlvbmdjaHVuc2hhbiAoU2FtKTsgV2Vp eGlucGVuZzsgWGlvbmdjaHVuc2hhbiAoU2FtKTsgV2VpeGlucGVuZw0KPlN1YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBW ZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3INCj5kcmFmdC13ZWktbXB0Y3AtcHJveHktbWVjaGFuaXNt LTAwLnR4dA0KPg0KPg0KPkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC13ZWktbXB0Y3AtcHJv eHktbWVjaGFuaXNtLTAwLnR4dA0KPmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkg WGlucGVuZyBXZWkgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURg0KPnJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQo+DQo+TmFt ZToJCWRyYWZ0LXdlaS1tcHRjcC1wcm94eS1tZWNoYW5pc20NCj5SZXZpc2lvbjoJMDANCj5UaXRs ZToJCU1QVENQIHByb3h5IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMNCj5Eb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE0LTA2LTMwDQo+ R3JvdXA6CQlJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCj5QYWdlczoJCTEyDQo+VVJMOg0KPmh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXdlaS1tcHRjcC1wcm94eS1tZWNo YW5pc20tMDAudHh0DQo+U3RhdHVzOg0KPmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9j L2RyYWZ0LXdlaS1tcHRjcC1wcm94eS1tZWNoYW5pc20vDQo+SHRtbGl6ZWQ6DQo+aHR0cDovL3Rv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtd2VpLW1wdGNwLXByb3h5LW1lY2hhbmlzbS0wMA0KPg0K Pg0KPkFic3RyYWN0Og0KPiAgIE11bHRpcGF0aCBUQ1AgcHJvdmlkZXMgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8g c2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzbHkgdXNlIG11bHRpcGxlDQo+ICAgcGF0aHMgYmV0d2VlbiBwZWVycyBmb3Ig YSBUQ1AvSVAgc2Vzc2lvbiwgYW5kIGl0IGNvdWxkIGltcHJvdmUNCj4gICByZXNvdXJjZSB1c2Fn ZSB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIG5ldHdvcmsgYW5kLCB0aHVzLCBpbXByb3ZlIHVzZXIgZXhwZXJpZW5jZQ0K PiAgIHRocm91Z2ggaGlnaGVyIHRocm91Z2hwdXQgYW5kIGltcHJvdmVkIHJlc2lsaWVuY2UgdG8g bmV0d29yayBmYWlsdXJlLg0KPiAgIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGlzY3Vzc2VzIHRoZSBtZWNoYW5p c20gb2YgYSBuZXcgbmV0d29yayBlbnRpdHksIG5hbWVkDQo+ICAgTVBUQ1AgcHJveHksIHdoaWNo IGlzIGFpbWVkIHRvIGFzc2lzdCBNUFRDUCBjYXBhYmxlIHBlZXIgdG8gdXNlIE1QVENQDQo+ICAg c2Vzc2lvbiBpbiBjYXNlIG9mIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgcGVlcnMgbm90IGJlaW5nIE1QVENQIGNhcGFi bGUuDQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+UGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBs ZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbg0KPnVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1s aXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQo+ DQo+VGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K