[MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4073 bytes --]

Hello,


NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.


We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings 
but here is a summary of the discussions we had:

  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback 
and advice from other kernel developers
  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream 
project exists and we could get help from more developers
  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by 
different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then 
important to have MPTCP upstream


Also note that:

  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main 
contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has 
already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and 
workshops [3]
  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.


The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to 
give a tutorial:

  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of 
Octavian
  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, 
the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and 
what problems we are currently facing.
  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in 
November: a good place to give a talk this time.


Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?


I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot 
of experiences in giving different introductions and more about MPTCP 
and here is what he suggests:

  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to 
be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 
1h, max 1h30.
  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about 
how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes 
upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need to 
support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same connection 
together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming 
aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: 
what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous 
discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function 
calls and how to reduce the impact, etc.
  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact 
with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe 
the scheduler, etc.


What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose 
completely different ideas!


Cheers,
Matthieu

[1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
[3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
-- 
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Mat Martineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4891 bytes --]


Hi Matthieu -

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
>
>
> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings 
> but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>
>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback 
> and advice from other kernel developers
>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream 
> project exists and we could get help from more developers
>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by 
> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then 
> important to have MPTCP upstream
>
>
> Also note that:
>
>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main 
> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)

Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not 
attending or supporting the conference:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2

>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has 
> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and 
> workshops [3]
>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>
>
> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to 
> give a tutorial:
>
>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of 
> Octavian
>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, 
> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and 
> what problems we are currently facing.
>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in 
> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>
>
> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
>
>
> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot 
> of experiences in giving different introductions and more about MPTCP 
> and here is what he suggests:
>
>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to 
> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 
> 1h, max 1h30.

From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute 
tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are possible. The 
closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at the 
schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 
60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold 
the audience's attention.

>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about 
> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes 
> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need to 
> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same connection 
> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.

It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only 
attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were a lot more 
people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers (XDP, BPF, TC, 
netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox 
support and the userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we 
want to drive a discussion, we could try to strike a balance between 
topics for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP 
internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to 
attend)

>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming 
> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: 
> what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous 
> discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function 
> calls and how to reduce the impact, etc.

The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it 
recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions the 
audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to 
have new content compared to the previous session.

>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact 
> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe 
> the scheduler, etc.
>
>
> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose 
> completely different ideas!

Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our 
meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.


> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html

--
Mat Martineau
Intel OTC

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9328 bytes --]

Hello,

Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a 
proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some 
comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from: 
https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals

Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the 
deadline is the 1st of May :)

 > * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat 
Martineau (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and 
myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)

I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in 
the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more 
people would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
@Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?

 > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base

We certainly need a better title, please comment!

  > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on

"hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types

 > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial, 
instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 
hours. The instructor will go over the technology either through code 
review or execution and interact with the attendees.)

I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by 
tutorial in the guidelines.

 > Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h

That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.

 > Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): 
Apple, Intel, Tessares

 > Description of proposal:
 >     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol 
to the Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of 
this tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what 
are the different use-cases already in production by some companies and 
what are the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive 
discussions and getting feedback from experienced developers will help 
us in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a 
technology already used by millions of people.
 >     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of 
MPTCP. A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how 
useful this protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended 
with API's like Netlink and BPF. Then we will have some explanations 
about how MPTCP is currently implemented. This current implementation is 
quite intrusive and that is certainly not something we would like to 
have upstream. We would like to express what we have in mind to change 
that, with some samples and initiate discussions.
 >     For more information about this project: 
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki

Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 
350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no 
longer find this limit on their website :)

Thank you for your help!

Have a good day/evening,
Matthieu

On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> 
> Hi Matthieu -
> 
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
>>
>>
>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly 
>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>>
>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback 
>> and advice from other kernel developers
>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream 
>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by 
>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then 
>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>>
>>
>> Also note that:
>>
>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main 
>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> 
> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not 
> attending or supporting the conference:
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> 
>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has 
>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and 
>> workshops [3]
>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>>
>>
>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to 
>> give a tutorial:
>>
>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of 
>> Octavian
>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, 
>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and 
>> what problems we are currently facing.
>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in 
>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>>
>>
>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
>>
>>
>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a 
>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more about 
>> MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
>>
>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to 
>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy 
>> in 1h, max 1h30.
> 
>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute 
> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are possible. The 
> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at the 
> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 
> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length to 
> hold the audience's attention.
> 
>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about 
>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes 
>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need 
>> to support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same 
>> connection together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> 
> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only 
> attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were a lot more 
> people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers (XDP, BPF, 
> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around 
> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more audience 
> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to strike a 
> balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more 
> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people are 
> still planning to attend)
> 
>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming 
>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: 
>> what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous 
>> discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function 
>> calls and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> 
> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it 
> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions the 
> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to have 
> new content compared to the previous session.
> 
>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact 
>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe 
>> the scheduler, etc.
>>
>>
>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose 
>> completely different ideas!
> 
> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our 
> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
> 
> 
>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> 
> -- 
> Mat Martineau
> Intel OTC

-- 
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Mat Martineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10172 bytes --]


Hi Matthieu -

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a proposition of 
> mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some comments. Note that I 
> have followed the submission guidelines from: 
> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
>
> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the deadline 
> is the 1st of May :)
>
>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau 
> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself, Matthieu 
> Baerts (Tessares)
>
> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in the ML 
> and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more people would 
> like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?

Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2 
presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give us 
some feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.

>
>> * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
>
> We certainly need a better title, please comment!

"Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?

>
> > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>
> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types

It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the 
better match.

>
>> * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial, 
> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 hours. The 
> instructor will go over the technology either through code review or 
> execution and interact with the attendees.)
>
> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by tutorial in 
> the guidelines.
>
>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>
> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>
>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple, 
> Intel, Tessares
>
>> Description of proposal:
>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to the 
> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this tutorial 
> is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what are the different 
> use-cases already in production by some companies and what are the challenges 
> to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and getting 
> feedback from experienced developers will help us in this task of easily 
> bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by millions of 
> people.

>>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of MPTCP. 
> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this 
> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with API's like 
> Netlink and BPF.

I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but 
what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?

> Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is 
> currently implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and 
> that is certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like 
> to express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and 
> initiate discussions.

My edit of the above:

"""

A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream Linux 
kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP extension 
(RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and discuss the 
challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP implementation.

We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of 
the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation can 
currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical 
application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and 
code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized 
Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing 
MPTCP to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux 
users.

"""

Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)

>>     For more information about this project: 
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>
> Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 350 
> words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no longer find 
> this limit on their website :)

Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.


Mat


>
> Thank you for your help!
>
> Have a good day/evening,
> Matthieu
>
> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Matthieu -
>> 
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings 
>>> but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>>>
>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback and 
>>> advice from other kernel developers
>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream project 
>>> exists and we could get help from more developers
>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by 
>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then 
>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Also note that:
>>>
>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main 
>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
>> 
>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not 
>> attending or supporting the conference:
>> 
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>>
>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has 
>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and workshops 
>>> [3]
>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to 
>>> give a tutorial:
>>>
>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of 
>>> Octavian
>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, the 
>>> different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what 
>>> problems we are currently facing.
>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in 
>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot 
>>> of experiences in giving different introductions and more about MPTCP and 
>>> here is what he suggests:
>>>
>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to be 
>>> sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 1h, 
>>> max 1h30.
>>
>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute 
>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are possible. The 
>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at the 
>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 
>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold 
>> the audience's attention.
>>
>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about how 
>>> MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes 
>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need to 
>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same connection 
>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
>> 
>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only 
>> attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were a lot more 
>> people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers (XDP, BPF, TC, 
>> netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox 
>> support and the userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we 
>> want to drive a discussion, we could try to strike a balance between topics 
>> for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP internals. 
>> (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to attend)
>>
>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming aspect, 
>>> e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what are we 
>>> allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous discussions we had on 
>>> this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and how to reduce 
>>> the impact, etc.
>> 
>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it 
>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions the 
>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to have 
>> new content compared to the previous session.
>>
>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact with 
>>> MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe the 
>>> scheduler, etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose 
>>> completely different ideas!
>> 
>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our 
>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
>> 
>> 
>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
>>

--
Mat Martineau
Intel OTC

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12687 bytes --]

Hi Mat,

Thank you for your review and input!

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <
mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Matthieu -
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
> Hello,
>>
>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a proposition
>> of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some comments. Note that
>> I have followed the submission guidelines from:
>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
>>
>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the
>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
>>
>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
>>>
>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself,
>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>>
>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in
>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more people
>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
>>
>
> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2
> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give us some
> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
>

OK thank you!
Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.

* Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
>>>
>>
>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
>>
>
> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
>

I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe not
needed for these kind of presentation.

> * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>>
>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
>>
>
> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the
> better match.
>

Thank you!

* Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
>>>
>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 hours.
>> The instructor will go over the technology either through code review or
>> execution and interact with the attendees.)
>>
>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by tutorial
>> in the guidelines.
>>
>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>>>
>>
>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>>
>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check):
>>> Apple,
>>>
>> Intel, Tessares
>>
>> Description of proposal:
>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to
>>> the
>>>
>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this
>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what are the
>> different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are
>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions
>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us in this task
>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by
>> millions of people.
>>
>
>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of
>>> MPTCP.
>>>
>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this
>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with API's like
>> Netlink and BPF.
>>
>
> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but
> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
>

It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net

Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and that is
>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to
>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate
>> discussions.
>>
>
> My edit of the above:
>
> """
>
> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream Linux
> kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP extension
> (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and discuss the
> challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP implementation.
>

Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the
audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it
is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.

We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of
> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation can
> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical
> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and
> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized
> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP
> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux users.
>

To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is
already used by millions of users?
I like how your improve the last bit :-)

"""
>
> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
>

Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!

    For more information about this project:
>>>
>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>
>
I guess I can keep this, right?

Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 350
>> words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no longer find
>> this limit on their website :)
>>
>
> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
>

Yes it is, thank you for your help!

Matthieu


>
> Mat
>
>
>
>
>> Thank you for your help!
>>
>> Have a good day/evening,
>> Matthieu
>>
>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Matthieu -
>>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly
>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>>>>
>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback
>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream
>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by
>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then
>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also note that:
>>>>
>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main
>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not
>>> attending or supporting the conference:
>>>
>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>>>
>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has
>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and
>>>> workshops [3]
>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to
>>>> give a tutorial:
>>>>
>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of
>>>> Octavian
>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP,
>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what
>>>> problems we are currently facing.
>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in
>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a
>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more about MPTCP
>>>> and here is what he suggests:
>>>>
>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to
>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy in
>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute
>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are possible. The
>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at the
>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of
>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold
>>> the audience's attention.
>>>
>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about how
>>>> MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes
>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need to
>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same connection
>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only
>>> attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were a lot more
>>> people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers (XDP, BPF, TC,
>>> netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox
>>> support and the userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we
>>> want to drive a discussion, we could try to strike a balance between topics
>>> for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP internals.
>>> (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to attend)
>>>
>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming aspect,
>>>> e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what are we
>>>> allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous discussions we had on
>>>> this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and how to reduce
>>>> the impact, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it
>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions the
>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to have
>>> new content compared to the previous session.
>>>
>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact with
>>>> MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe the
>>>> scheduler, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose
>>>> completely different ideas!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our
>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Mat Martineau
> Intel OTC
>



-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 20638 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13661 bytes --]

Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,

I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some times to
comment this if you want to do so.

Best regards,
Matthieu

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:

> Hi Mat,
>
> Thank you for your review and input!
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Matthieu -
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
>>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some
>>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
>>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
>>>
>>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the
>>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
>>>
>>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
>>>>
>>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself,
>>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>>>
>>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in
>>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more people
>>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
>>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
>>>
>>
>> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2
>> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give us some
>> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
>>
>
> OK thank you!
> Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
>
> * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
>>>>
>>>
>>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
>>>
>>
>> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
>>
>
> I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe
> not needed for these kind of presentation.
>
> > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>>>
>>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
>>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
>>>
>>
>> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the
>> better match.
>>
>
> Thank you!
>
> * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
>>>>
>>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5
>>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either through code
>>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
>>>
>>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by
>>> tutorial in the guidelines.
>>>
>>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>>>
>>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check):
>>>> Apple,
>>>>
>>> Intel, Tessares
>>>
>>> Description of proposal:
>>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to
>>>> the
>>>>
>>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this
>>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what are the
>>> different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are
>>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions
>>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us in this task
>>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by
>>> millions of people.
>>>
>>
>>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of
>>>> MPTCP.
>>>>
>>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this
>>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with API's like
>>> Netlink and BPF.
>>>
>>
>> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but
>> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
>>
>
> It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
> Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
> programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
>
> Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and that is
>>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to
>>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>
>> My edit of the above:
>>
>> """
>>
>> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
>> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
>> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and
>> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP implementation.
>>
>
> Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the
> audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it
> is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
>
> We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of
>> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation can
>> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical
>> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and
>> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized
>> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP
>> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux users.
>>
>
> To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is
> already used by millions of users?
> I like how your improve the last bit :-)
>
> """
>>
>> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
>>
>
> Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
>
>     For more information about this project:
>>>>
>>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>>
>>
> I guess I can keep this, right?
>
> Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max
>>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no longer
>>> find this limit on their website :)
>>>
>>
>> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
>>
>
> Yes it is, thank you for your help!
>
> Matthieu
>
>
>>
>> Mat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for your help!
>>>
>>> Have a good day/evening,
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Matthieu -
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly
>>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback
>>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
>>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream
>>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
>>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by
>>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then
>>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also note that:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main
>>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not
>>>> attending or supporting the conference:
>>>>
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>>>>
>>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has
>>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and
>>>>> workshops [3]
>>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to
>>>>> give a tutorial:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of
>>>>> Octavian
>>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP,
>>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what
>>>>> problems we are currently facing.
>>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in
>>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a
>>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more about MPTCP
>>>>> and here is what he suggests:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to
>>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy in
>>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute
>>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are possible. The
>>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at the
>>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of
>>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold
>>>> the audience's attention.
>>>>
>>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about
>>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes
>>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need to
>>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same connection
>>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've
>>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were a lot
>>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers (XDP, BPF,
>>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around
>>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more audience
>>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to strike a
>>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more
>>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still
>>>> planning to attend)
>>>>
>>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming
>>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what
>>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous discussions we
>>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and how to
>>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it
>>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions the
>>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to have
>>>> new content compared to the previous session.
>>>>
>>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact
>>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe the
>>>>> scheduler, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose
>>>>> completely different ideas!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our
>>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Mat Martineau
>> Intel OTC
>>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> Engineer
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net
> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>



-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 23756 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Mat Martineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13794 bytes --]


On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:

> Hi Mat,
> 
> Thank you for your review and input!
> 
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>       Hi Matthieu -
>
>       On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
>             Hello,
>
>             Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I
>             already put some comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
>             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
>
>             Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
>
>                   * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
>
>             (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>
>             I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can
>             add more people if more people would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
>             @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> 
>
>       Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure
>       they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> 
> 
> OK thank you!
> Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
>
>                   * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
> 
>
>             We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> 
>
>       "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> 
> 
> I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe not needed for these kind of presentation.
>
>             > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>
>             "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
>             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> 
>
>       It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the better match.
> 
> 
> Thank you!
>
>                   * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
>
>             instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the technology
>             either through code review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
>
>             I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by tutorial in the guidelines.
>
>                   Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> 
>
>             That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>
>                   Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
>
>             Intel, Tessares
>
>                   Description of proposal:
>                       A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to the
>
>             Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension
>             (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are the challenges to
>             upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
>             in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by millions of people.
> 
>
>                       In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of MPTCP.
>
>             A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this protocol is in today's Internet and how it
>             can be extended with API's like Netlink and BPF.
> 
>
>       I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> 
> 
> It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
> Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
> programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net

If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not sure 
it belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion about it.

>
>             Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently implemented. This current implementation is quite
>             intrusive and that is certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to express what we have
>             in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate discussions.
> 
>
>       My edit of the above:
>
>       """
>
>       A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
>       this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream
>       MPTCP implementation.
> 
> 
> Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.

I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word "discuss" in there 
for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear enough.

>
>       We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
>       implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical application for deploying MPTCP now,
>       but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
>       all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
>       users.
> 
> 
> To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is already used by millions of users?
> I like how your improve the last bit :-)

Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring out how to 
fit it in to the last sentence :)

>
>       """
>
>       Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> 
> 
> Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
>
>                       For more information about this project:
>
>             https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> 
> 
> I guess I can keep this, right?

Yes, that was my intent.


Thanks,

Mat


>
>             Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 350 words limit we found last time. But on
>             the other hand, I can no longer find this limit on their website :)
> 
>
>       Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
> 
> 
> Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> 
> Matthieu
> 
> 
>
>       Mat
> 
> 
>
>             Thank you for your help!
>
>             Have a good day/evening,
>             Matthieu
>
>             On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>
>                   Hi Matthieu -
>
>                   On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
>                         Hello,
> 
>
>                         NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> 
>
>                         We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings but here is a
>                         summary of the discussions we had:
>
>                          - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback and advice from other
>                         kernel developers
>                          - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
>                         get help from more developers
>                          - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by different companies, some
>                         are even ready to contribute ; it is then important to have MPTCP upstream
> 
>
>                         Also note that:
>
>                          - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main contributors should be
>                         there (we don't have a list)
> 
>
>                   Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not attending or supporting the
>                   conference:
>
>                   https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>
>                          - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
>                         2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>                          - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and workshops [3]
>                          - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> 
>
>                         The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
>
>                          - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of Octavian
>                          - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, the different
>                         use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
>                          - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in November: a good place to
>                         give a talk this time.
> 
>
>                         Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> 
>
>                         I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
>                         giving different introductions and more about MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
>
>                          - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>                          - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
>                         -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 1h, max 1h30.
> 
>
>                    From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute tutorials or "student-participation"
>                   2-3 hour sessions are possible. The closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at
>                   the schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think it
>                   helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold the audience's attention.
>
>                          - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>                         implemented or should be implemented if it goes upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
>                         extra TCP Options, we need to support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
>                         connection together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> 
>
>                   It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only attended one Netdev Conference,
>                   and it seemed like there were a lot more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
>                   (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and the
>                   userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
>                   strike a balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP internals.
>                   (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to attend)
>
>                          - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
>                         footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
>                         to many previous discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
>                         and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> 
>
>                   The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it recently, I should look at it again
>                   to see what kind of questions the audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to
>                   have new content compared to the previous session.
>
>                          - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
>                         connection, control the path manager, maybe the scheduler, etc.
> 
>
>                         What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose completely different
>                         ideas!
> 
>
>                   Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be good to
>                   discuss the tutorial there.
> 
>
>                         [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>                         [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>                         [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html

--
Mat Martineau
Intel OTC

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16151 bytes --]

Hi Mat,

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mat Martineau <
mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:

>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
> Hi Mat,
>>
>> Thank you for your review and input!
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <
>> mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>       Hi Matthieu -
>>
>>       On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>
>>             Hello,
>>
>>             Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I
>>             already put some comments. Note that I have followed the
>> submission guidelines from:
>>             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposa
>> ls
>>
>>             Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush
>> but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
>>
>>                   * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch
>> (Apple), Mat Martineau
>>
>>             (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and
>> myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>>
>>             I wrote down the names of people who participated in the
>> discussion in the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can
>>             add more people if more people would like to join the
>> preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
>>             @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
>>
>>
>>       Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1
>> or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure
>>       they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit the number of
>> presenters.
>>
>>
>> OK thank you!
>> Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
>>
>>                   * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an
>> upstreamable base
>>
>>
>>             We certainly need a better title, please comment!
>>
>>
>>       "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
>>
>>
>> I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe
>> not needed for these kind of presentation.
>>
>>             > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>>
>>             "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the
>> Submission Types.
>>             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
>>
>>
>>       It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on
>> is the better match.
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>                   * Submission type (one of talk, presentation,
>> workshop): tutorial,
>>
>>             instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to
>> exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the technology
>>             either through code review or execution and interact with the
>> attendees.)
>>
>>             I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced
>> by tutorial in the guidelines.
>>
>>                   Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>>
>>
>>             That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>>
>>                   Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of
>> interest check): Apple,
>>
>>             Intel, Tessares
>>
>>                   Description of proposal:
>>                       A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath
>> TCP protocol to the
>>
>>             Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of
>> this tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension
>>             (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases already in
>> production by some companies and what are the challenges to
>>             upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and
>> getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
>>             in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a
>> technology already used by millions of people.
>>
>>
>>                       In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic
>> introduction of MPTCP.
>>
>>             A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how
>> useful this protocol is in today's Internet and how it
>>             can be extended with API's like Netlink and BPF.
>>
>>
>>       I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path
>> manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
>>
>>
>> It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with
>> eBPF.
>> Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
>> implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
>> programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
>>
>
> If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not sure
> it belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion about it.


We are saying that "the [Open-Source] implementation can currently be
extended with netlink and BPF". It can come later :)

            Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is
>> currently implemented. This current implementation is quite
>>             intrusive and that is certainly not something we would like
>> to have upstream. We would like to express what we have
>>             in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate
>> discussions.
>>
>>
>>       My edit of the above:
>>
>>       """
>>
>>       A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the
>> upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
>>       this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in
>> production, and discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream
>>       MPTCP implementation.
>>
>>
>> Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the
>> audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
>> It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it
>> is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
>>
>
> I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word "discuss" in there
> for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear enough.
>

It was maybe me, maybe no need to insist :-)

      We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
>> utility of the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
>>       implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This
>> not only has practical application for deploying MPTCP now,
>>       but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to evolve in
>> order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
>>       all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the
>> upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
>>       users.
>>
>>
>> To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is
>> already used by millions of users?
>> I like how your improve the last bit :-)
>>
>
> Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring out how to
> fit it in to the last sentence :)
>

Could we simply say:

We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of
the protocol already used by millions of users on today's Internet

or:

and to show how this implementation - already used by millions of users -
can currently be extended with Netlink and BPF.

>
>
>>       """
>>
>>       Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
>>
>>                       For more information about this project:
>>
>>             https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>>
>>
>> I guess I can keep this, right?
>>
>
> Yes, that was my intent.
>

Will do!

Thank you!

Matthieu



>
> Thanks,
>
> Mat
>
>
>
>
>>             Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far
>> from the max 350 words limit we found last time. But on
>>             the other hand, I can no longer find this limit on their
>> website :)
>>
>>
>>       Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
>> proposal.
>>
>>
>> Yes it is, thank you for your help!
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>>
>>
>>       Mat
>>
>>
>>
>>             Thank you for your help!
>>
>>             Have a good day/evening,
>>             Matthieu
>>
>>             On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>
>>                   Hi Matthieu -
>>
>>                   On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>
>>                         Hello,
>>
>>
>>                         NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer:
>> July 11th to 13th, 2018.
>>
>>
>>                         We already talked about this event on this ML and
>> at our weekly meetings but here is a
>>                         summary of the discussions we had:
>>
>>                          - we would like to have a presentation there
>> mainly to get feedback and advice from other
>>                         kernel developers
>>                          - a presentation would clearly indicate that
>> this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
>>                         get help from more developers
>>                          - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP
>> upstream is asked by different companies, some
>>                         are even ready to contribute ; it is then
>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>>
>>
>>                         Also note that:
>>
>>                          - David Miller will not be present in Montréal
>> [1] but other main contributors should be
>>                         there (we don't have a list)
>>
>>
>>                   Side note, in the past day David reiterated his
>> statement about not attending or supporting the
>>                   conference:
>>
>>                   https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>>
>>                          - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about
>> "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
>>                         2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>>                          - 3 types of presentation are available: talks,
>> tutorials and workshops [3]
>>                          - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May
>> 1st, 2018.
>>
>>
>>                         The current idea we briefly discussed during our
>> weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
>>
>>                          - It is not useful to give almost the same
>> presentation as the one of Octavian
>>                          - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to
>> explain what is MPTCP, the different
>>                         use-cases, why it is important to have it
>> upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
>>                          - David Miller and many other kernel developers
>> will go to LPC in November: a good place to
>>                         give a talk this time.
>>
>>
>>                         Do you have any ideas on what we could show in
>> this tutorial?
>>
>>
>>                         I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier
>> Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
>>                         giving different introductions and more about
>> MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
>>
>>                          - A first part about a basic introduction of
>> MPTCP
>>                          - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible
>> with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
>>                         -- asking people to setup something is not easy
>> in 1h, max 1h30.
>>
>>
>>                    From the description at [3], either "instructor-led"
>> 60-90 minute tutorials or "student-participation"
>>                   2-3 hour sessions are possible. The closed demo maps
>> well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at
>>                   the schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had
>> one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think it
>>                   helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold the
>> audience's attention.
>>
>>                          - Then trying to have interactive discussions or
>> explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>>                         implemented or should be implemented if it goes
>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
>>                         extra TCP Options, we need to support
>> middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
>>                         connection together, we need a scheduler, a PM,
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>                   It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience
>> will be. I've only attended one Netdev Conference,
>>                   and it seemed like there were a lot more people with
>> expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
>>                   (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network
>> topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and the
>>                   userspace API might have more audience interaction. If
>> we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
>>                   strike a balance between topics for the broader
>> audience and those with more knowledge of TCP internals.
>>                   (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning
>> to attend)
>>
>>                          - Of course, we should focus our discussions on
>> the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
>>                         footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what
>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
>>                         to many previous discussions we had on this ML,
>> e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
>>                         and how to reduce the impact, etc.
>>
>>
>>                   The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I
>> haven't watched it recently, I should look at it again
>>                   to see what kind of questions the audience was asking.
>> As you mentioned above we should be careful to
>>                   have new content compared to the previous session.
>>
>>                          - If we have time, we could discuss about how
>> users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
>>                         connection, control the path manager, maybe the
>> scheduler, etc.
>>
>>
>>                         What do you think about this? Feel free to
>> comment and even propose completely different
>>                         ideas!
>>
>>
>>                   Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this
>> topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be good to
>>                   discuss the tutorial there.
>>
>>
>>                         [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail
>> /mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>>                         [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>>                         [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x1
>> 2/submit-proposal.html
>>
>
> --
> Mat Martineau
> Intel OTC
>



-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 21956 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Mat Martineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 19221 bytes --]


On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:

> Hi Mat,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>       On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
>             Hi Mat,
>
>             Thank you for your review and input!
>
>             On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>                   Hi Matthieu -
>
>                   On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
>                         Hello,
>
>                         Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a proposition of mail to send to NetDev
>             committee. I
>                         already put some comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
>                         https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
>
>                         Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
>
>                               * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
>
>                         (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>
>                         I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in the ML and during the weekly
>             meetings. I can
>                         add more people if more people would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
>                         @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> 
>
>                   Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too
>             many. I'm sure
>                   they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> 
>
>             OK thank you!
>             Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
>
>                               * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
> 
>
>                         We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> 
>
>                   "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> 
>
>             I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe not needed for these kind of presentation.
>
>                         > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>
>                         "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
>                         https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> 
>
>                   It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the better match.
> 
>
>             Thank you!
>
>                               * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
>
>                         instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the
>             technology
>                         either through code review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
>
>                         I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by tutorial in the guidelines.
>
>                               Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> 
>
>                         That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>
>                               Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
>
>                         Intel, Tessares
>
>                               Description of proposal:
>                                   A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to the
>
>                         Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this tutorial is to discover what is this
>             TCP extension
>                         (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are the
>             challenges to
>                         upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and getting feedback from experienced developers
>             will help us
>                         in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by millions of
>             people.
> 
>
>                                   In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of MPTCP.
>
>                         A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this protocol is in today's Internet
>             and how it
>                         can be extended with API's like Netlink and BPF.
> 
>
>                   I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're
>             referring to?
> 
>
>             It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
>             Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source implementation, there is already the possibility to
>             get a version with a
>             programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> 
> 
> If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not sure it belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion
> about it.
> 
> 
> We are saying that "the [Open-Source] implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF". It can come later :)
>
>                         Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently implemented. This current implementation
>             is quite
>                         intrusive and that is certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to express
>             what we have
>                         in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate discussions.
> 
>
>                   My edit of the above:
>
>                   """
>
>                   A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce
>             the audience to
>                   this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and discuss the challenges in
>             converging on an upstream
>                   MPTCP implementation.
> 
>
>             Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
>             It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it is a tutorial, not just a "simple"
>             presentation.
> 
>
>       I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word "discuss" in there for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear
>       enough.
> 
> 
> It was maybe me, maybe no need to insist :-)
>
>                   We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's internet,
>             and to show how this
>                   implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical application for
>             deploying MPTCP now,
>                   but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized
>             Linux TCP core we
>                   all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream kernel so the technology is available
>             to all Linux
>                   users.
> 
>
>             To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is already used by millions of users?
>             I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> 
>
>       Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring out how to fit it in to the last sentence :)
> 
> 
> Could we simply say:
> 
> We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of the protocol already used by millions of users on today's Internet

How about "used by millions of devices"? I think it flows a little better 
than "used by ... users".


Thanks,

Mat

> 
> or:
> 
> and to show how this implementation - already used by millions of users - can currently be extended with Netlink and BPF.
> 
>
>                   """
>
>                   Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> 
>
>             Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
>
>                                   For more information about this project:
>
>                         https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> 
>
>             I guess I can keep this, right?
> 
>
>       Yes, that was my intent.
> 
> 
> Will do!
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Matthieu
> 
> 
> 
>
>       Thanks,
>
>       Mat
> 
> 
>
>                         Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 350 words limit we found last
>             time. But on
>                         the other hand, I can no longer find this limit on their website :)
> 
>
>                   Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
> 
>
>             Yes it is, thank you for your help!
>
>             Matthieu
> 
> 
>
>                   Mat
> 
> 
>
>                         Thank you for your help!
>
>                         Have a good day/evening,
>                         Matthieu
>
>                         On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>
>                               Hi Matthieu -
>
>                               On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
>                                     Hello,
> 
>
>                                     NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> 
>
>                                     We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings but here is a
>                                     summary of the discussions we had:
>
>                                      - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback and advice from other
>                                     kernel developers
>                                      - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
>                                     get help from more developers
>                                      - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by different companies, some
>                                     are even ready to contribute ; it is then important to have MPTCP upstream
> 
>
>                                     Also note that:
>
>                                      - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main contributors should be
>                                     there (we don't have a list)
> 
>
>                               Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not attending or supporting the
>                               conference:
>
>                               https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>
>                                      - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
>                                     2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>                                      - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and workshops [3]
>                                      - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> 
>
>                                     The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
>
>                                      - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of Octavian
>                                      - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, the different
>                                     use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
>                                      - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in November: a good place to
>                                     give a talk this time.
> 
>
>                                     Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> 
>
>                                     I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
>                                     giving different introductions and more about MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
>
>                                      - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>                                      - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
>                                     -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 1h, max 1h30.
> 
>
>                                From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute tutorials or
>             "student-participation"
>                               2-3 hour sessions are possible. The closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
>             Looking at
>                               the schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think
>             it
>                               helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold the audience's attention.
>
>                                      - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>                                     implemented or should be implemented if it goes upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
>                                     extra TCP Options, we need to support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
>                                     connection together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> 
>
>                               It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only attended one Netdev
>             Conference,
>                               and it seemed like there were a lot more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
>             layers
>                               (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and
>             the
>                               userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try
>             to
>                               strike a balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP
>             internals.
>                               (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to attend)
>
>                                      - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
>                                     footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
>                                     to many previous discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
>                                     and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> 
>
>                               The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it recently, I should look at it
>             again
>                               to see what kind of questions the audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful
>             to
>                               have new content compared to the previous session.
>
>                                      - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
>                                     connection, control the path manager, maybe the scheduler, etc.
> 
>
>                                     What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose completely different
>                                     ideas!
> 
>
>                               Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be
>             good to
>                               discuss the tutorial there.
> 
>
>                                     [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>                                     [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>                                     [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> 
>
>       --
>       Mat Martineau
>       Intel OTC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Tessares SA
> Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net 
> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> DISCLAIMER.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not
> the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
> information is strictly prohibited.
>

--
Mat Martineau
Intel OTC

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Christoph Paasch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20195 bytes --]

Hello,

On 30/04/18 - 09:05:41, Mat Martineau wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mat,
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> >       On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > 
> >             Hi Mat,
> > 
> >             Thank you for your review and input!
> > 
> >             On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> >                   Hi Matthieu -
> > 
> >                   On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > 
> >                         Hello,
> > 
> >                         Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a proposition of mail to send to NetDev
> >             committee. I
> >                         already put some comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
> >                         https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > 
> >                         Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > 
> >                               * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
> > 
> >                         (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > 
> >                         I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in the ML and during the weekly
> >             meetings. I can
> >                         add more people if more people would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> >                         @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> > 
> > 
> >                   Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too
> >             many. I'm sure
> >                   they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> > 
> > 
> >             OK thank you!
> >             Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > 
> >                               * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
> > 
> > 
> >                         We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > 
> > 
> >                   "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > 
> > 
> >             I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > 
> >                         > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> > 
> >                         "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
> >                         https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > 
> > 
> >                   It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the better match.
> > 
> > 
> >             Thank you!
> > 
> >                               * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> > 
> >                         instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the
> >             technology
> >                         either through code review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> > 
> >                         I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by tutorial in the guidelines.
> > 
> >                               Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > 
> > 
> >                         That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > 
> >                               Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
> > 
> >                         Intel, Tessares
> > 
> >                               Description of proposal:
> >                                   A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to the
> > 
> >                         Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this tutorial is to discover what is this
> >             TCP extension
> >                         (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are the
> >             challenges to
> >                         upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and getting feedback from experienced developers
> >             will help us
> >                         in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by millions of
> >             people.
> > 
> > 
> >                                   In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of MPTCP.
> > 
> >                         A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this protocol is in today's Internet
> >             and how it
> >                         can be extended with API's like Netlink and BPF.
> > 
> > 
> >                   I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're
> >             referring to?
> > 
> > 
> >             It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
> >             Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source implementation, there is already the possibility to
> >             get a version with a
> >             programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> > 
> > 
> > If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not sure it belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion
> > about it.
> > 
> > 
> > We are saying that "the [Open-Source] implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF". It can come later :)
> > 
> >                         Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently implemented. This current implementation
> >             is quite
> >                         intrusive and that is certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to express
> >             what we have
> >                         in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate discussions.
> > 
> > 
> >                   My edit of the above:
> > 
> >                   """
> > 
> >                   A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce
> >             the audience to
> >                   this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and discuss the challenges in
> >             converging on an upstream
> >                   MPTCP implementation.
> > 
> > 
> >             Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> >             It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it is a tutorial, not just a "simple"
> >             presentation.
> > 
> > 
> >       I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word "discuss" in there for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear
> >       enough.
> > 
> > 
> > It was maybe me, maybe no need to insist :-)
> > 
> >                   We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's internet,
> >             and to show how this
> >                   implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical application for
> >             deploying MPTCP now,
> >                   but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized
> >             Linux TCP core we
> >                   all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream kernel so the technology is available
> >             to all Linux
> >                   users.
> > 
> > 
> >             To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is already used by millions of users?
> >             I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> > 
> > 
> >       Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring out how to fit it in to the last sentence :)
> > 
> > 
> > Could we simply say:
> > 
> > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of the protocol already used by millions of users on today's Internet
> 
> How about "used by millions of devices"? I think it flows a little better
> than "used by ... users".

+1 on the "used by millions of devices".


Christoph

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mat
> 
> > 
> > or:
> > 
> > and to show how this implementation - already used by millions of users - can currently be extended with Netlink and BPF.
> > 
> > 
> >                   """
> > 
> >                   Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > 
> > 
> >             Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > 
> >                                   For more information about this project:
> > 
> >                         https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > 
> > 
> >             I guess I can keep this, right?
> > 
> > 
> >       Yes, that was my intent.
> > 
> > 
> > Will do!
> > 
> > Thank you!
> > 
> > Matthieu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       Thanks,
> > 
> >       Mat
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                         Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 350 words limit we found last
> >             time. But on
> >                         the other hand, I can no longer find this limit on their website :)
> > 
> > 
> >                   Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
> > 
> > 
> >             Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > 
> >             Matthieu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                   Mat
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >                         Thank you for your help!
> > 
> >                         Have a good day/evening,
> >                         Matthieu
> > 
> >                         On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > 
> >                               Hi Matthieu -
> > 
> >                               On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > 
> >                                     Hello,
> > 
> > 
> >                                     NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> > 
> > 
> >                                     We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings but here is a
> >                                     summary of the discussions we had:
> > 
> >                                      - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback and advice from other
> >                                     kernel developers
> >                                      - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
> >                                     get help from more developers
> >                                      - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by different companies, some
> >                                     are even ready to contribute ; it is then important to have MPTCP upstream
> > 
> > 
> >                                     Also note that:
> > 
> >                                      - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main contributors should be
> >                                     there (we don't have a list)
> > 
> > 
> >                               Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not attending or supporting the
> >                               conference:
> > 
> >                               https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > 
> >                                      - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
> >                                     2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> >                                      - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and workshops [3]
> >                                      - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > 
> > 
> >                                     The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
> > 
> >                                      - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of Octavian
> >                                      - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, the different
> >                                     use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
> >                                      - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in November: a good place to
> >                                     give a talk this time.
> > 
> > 
> >                                     Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> > 
> > 
> >                                     I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
> >                                     giving different introductions and more about MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
> > 
> >                                      - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> >                                      - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
> >                                     -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 1h, max 1h30.
> > 
> > 
> >                                From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute tutorials or
> >             "student-participation"
> >                               2-3 hour sessions are possible. The closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
> >             Looking at
> >                               the schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think
> >             it
> >                               helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold the audience's attention.
> > 
> >                                      - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> >                                     implemented or should be implemented if it goes upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
> >                                     extra TCP Options, we need to support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> >                                     connection together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > 
> > 
> >                               It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only attended one Netdev
> >             Conference,
> >                               and it seemed like there were a lot more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
> >             layers
> >                               (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and
> >             the
> >                               userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try
> >             to
> >                               strike a balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP
> >             internals.
> >                               (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to attend)
> > 
> >                                      - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
> >                                     footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
> >                                     to many previous discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
> >                                     and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> > 
> > 
> >                               The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it recently, I should look at it
> >             again
> >                               to see what kind of questions the audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful
> >             to
> >                               have new content compared to the previous session.
> > 
> >                                      - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
> >                                     connection, control the path manager, maybe the scheduler, etc.
> > 
> > 
> >                                     What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose completely different
> >                                     ideas!
> > 
> > 
> >                               Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be
> >             good to
> >                               discuss the tutorial there.
> > 
> > 
> >                                     [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> >                                     [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> >                                     [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> > 
> > 
> >       --
> >       Mat Martineau
> >       Intel OTC
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Tessares SA
> > Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
> > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > www.tessares.net 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > 
> > 
> > _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > DISCLAIMER.
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> > addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> > notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not
> > the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
> > information is strictly prohibited.
> > 
> 
> --
> Mat Martineau
> Intel OTC

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Christoph Paasch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14596 bytes --]

On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
> 
> I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some times to
> comment this if you want to do so.
> 
> Best regards,
> Matthieu
> 
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mat,
> >
> > Thank you for your review and input!
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> > intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Matthieu -
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
> >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some
> >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
> >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> >>>
> >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the
> >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
> >>>
> >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
> >>>>
> >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself,
> >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> >>>
> >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in
> >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more people
> >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2
> >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give us some
> >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> >>
> >
> > OK thank you!
> > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> >
> > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> >>>
> >>
> >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> >>
> >
> > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe
> > not needed for these kind of presentation.
> >
> > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> >>>
> >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
> >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the
> >> better match.
> >>
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> >>>>
> >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5
> >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either through code
> >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> >>>
> >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by
> >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
> >>>
> >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> >>>
> >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check):
> >>>> Apple,

I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.

If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.


Christoph


> >>>>
> >>> Intel, Tessares
> >>>
> >>> Description of proposal:
> >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this
> >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what are the
> >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are
> >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions
> >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us in this task
> >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by
> >>> millions of people.
> >>>
> >>
> >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of
> >>>> MPTCP.
> >>>>
> >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this
> >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with API's like
> >>> Netlink and BPF.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but
> >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> >>
> >
> > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
> > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
> > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> >
> > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and that is
> >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to
> >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate
> >>> discussions.
> >>>
> >>
> >> My edit of the above:
> >>
> >> """
> >>
> >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
> >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
> >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and
> >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP implementation.
> >>
> >
> > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the
> > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it
> > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> >
> > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of
> >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation can
> >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical
> >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and
> >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized
> >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP
> >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux users.
> >>
> >
> > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is
> > already used by millions of users?
> > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> >
> > """
> >>
> >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> >
> >     For more information about this project:
> >>>>
> >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> >>
> >>
> > I guess I can keep this, right?
> >
> > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max
> >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no longer
> >>> find this limit on their website :)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
> >>
> >
> > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> >
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Mat
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thank you for your help!
> >>>
> >>> Have a good day/evening,
> >>> Matthieu
> >>>
> >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Matthieu -
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly
> >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback
> >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
> >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream
> >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
> >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by
> >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then
> >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also note that:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main
> >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not
> >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> >>>>
> >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has
> >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and
> >>>>> workshops [3]
> >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to
> >>>>> give a tutorial:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of
> >>>>> Octavian
> >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP,
> >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what
> >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
> >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in
> >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a
> >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more about MPTCP
> >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to
> >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not easy in
> >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute
> >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are possible. The
> >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at the
> >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of
> >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold
> >>>> the audience's attention.
> >>>>
> >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about
> >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it goes
> >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we need to
> >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same connection
> >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've
> >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were a lot
> >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers (XDP, BPF,
> >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around
> >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more audience
> >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to strike a
> >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more
> >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still
> >>>> planning to attend)
> >>>>
> >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming
> >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what
> >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous discussions we
> >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and how to
> >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it
> >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions the
> >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to have
> >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
> >>>>
> >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact
> >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager, maybe the
> >>>>> scheduler, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose
> >>>>> completely different ideas!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our
> >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> --
> >> Mat Martineau
> >> Intel OTC
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > Engineer
> > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > www.tessares.net
> > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> Engineer
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net
> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
> strictly prohibited.

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Christoph Paasch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14797 bytes --]

On 30/04/18 - 08:37:01, Mat Martineau wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mat,
> > 
> > Thank you for your review and input!
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> >       Hi Matthieu -
> > 
> >       On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > 
> >             Hello,
> > 
> >             Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I
> >             already put some comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
> >             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > 
> >             Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > 
> >                   * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
> > 
> >             (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > 
> >             I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion in the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can
> >             add more people if more people would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> >             @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> > 
> > 
> >       Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure
> >       they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> > 
> > 
> > OK thank you!
> > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > 
> >                   * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable base
> > 
> > 
> >             We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > 
> > 
> >       "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > 
> > 
> > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > 
> >             > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> > 
> >             "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission Types.
> >             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > 
> > 
> >       It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is the better match.
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you!
> > 
> >                   * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> > 
> >             instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the technology
> >             either through code review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> > 
> >             I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by tutorial in the guidelines.
> > 
> >                   Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > 
> > 
> >             That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > 
> >                   Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
> > 
> >             Intel, Tessares
> > 
> >                   Description of proposal:
> >                       A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP protocol to the
> > 
> >             Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension
> >             (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases already in production by some companies and what are the challenges to
> >             upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
> >             in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already used by millions of people.
> > 
> > 
> >                       In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of MPTCP.
> > 
> >             A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful this protocol is in today's Internet and how it
> >             can be extended with API's like Netlink and BPF.
> > 
> > 
> >       I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> > 
> > 
> > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with eBPF.
> > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
> > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> 
> If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not sure it
> belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion about it.

I agree that we don't need BPF in the summary here. We can talk about its
potential during the presentation though. But, here in the summary it is a
bit more distracting IMO.

> 
> > 
> >             Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently implemented. This current implementation is quite
> >             intrusive and that is certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would like to express what we have
> >             in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate discussions.
> > 
> > 
> >       My edit of the above:
> > 
> >       """
> > 
> >       A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
> >       this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream
> >       MPTCP implementation.
> > 
> > 
> > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with the audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity, it is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> 
> I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word "discuss" in there
> for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear enough.

I think that "discuss with the audience" or "have interactive discussions"
makes it more clear what we want to achieve.



Christoph

> >       We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
> >       implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has practical application for deploying MPTCP now,
> >       but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
> >       all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
> >       users.
> > 
> > 
> > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation is already used by millions of users?
> > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> 
> Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring out how to fit
> it in to the last sentence :)
> 
> > 
> >       """
> > 
> >       Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > 
> >                       For more information about this project:
> > 
> >             https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > 
> > 
> > I guess I can keep this, right?
> 
> Yes, that was my intent.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mat
> 
> 
> > 
> >             Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max 350 words limit we found last time. But on
> >             the other hand, I can no longer find this limit on their website :)
> > 
> > 
> >       Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this proposal.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > 
> > Matthieu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       Mat
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >             Thank you for your help!
> > 
> >             Have a good day/evening,
> >             Matthieu
> > 
> >             On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > 
> >                   Hi Matthieu -
> > 
> >                   On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > 
> >                         Hello,
> > 
> > 
> >                         NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> > 
> > 
> >                         We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly meetings but here is a
> >                         summary of the discussions we had:
> > 
> >                          - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get feedback and advice from other
> >                         kernel developers
> >                          - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
> >                         get help from more developers
> >                          - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by different companies, some
> >                         are even ready to contribute ; it is then important to have MPTCP upstream
> > 
> > 
> >                         Also note that:
> > 
> >                          - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main contributors should be
> >                         there (we don't have a list)
> > 
> > 
> >                   Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not attending or supporting the
> >                   conference:
> > 
> >                   https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > 
> >                          - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
> >                         2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> >                          - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and workshops [3]
> >                          - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > 
> > 
> >                         The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
> > 
> >                          - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the one of Octavian
> >                          - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, the different
> >                         use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
> >                          - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in November: a good place to
> >                         give a talk this time.
> > 
> > 
> >                         Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> > 
> > 
> >                         I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
> >                         giving different introductions and more about MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
> > 
> >                          - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> >                          - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
> >                         -- asking people to setup something is not easy in 1h, max 1h30.
> > 
> > 
> >                    From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute tutorials or "student-participation"
> >                   2-3 hour sessions are possible. The closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at
> >                   the schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think it
> >                   helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold the audience's attention.
> > 
> >                          - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> >                         implemented or should be implemented if it goes upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
> >                         extra TCP Options, we need to support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> >                         connection together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > 
> > 
> >                   It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've only attended one Netdev Conference,
> >                   and it seemed like there were a lot more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
> >                   (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and the
> >                   userspace API might have more audience interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
> >                   strike a balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP internals.
> >                   (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still planning to attend)
> > 
> >                          - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
> >                         footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack: what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
> >                         to many previous discussions we had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
> >                         and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> > 
> > 
> >                   The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched it recently, I should look at it again
> >                   to see what kind of questions the audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to
> >                   have new content compared to the previous session.
> > 
> >                          - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
> >                         connection, control the path manager, maybe the scheduler, etc.
> > 
> > 
> >                         What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose completely different
> >                         ideas!
> > 
> > 
> >                   Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be good to
> >                   discuss the tutorial there.
> > 
> > 
> >                         [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> >                         [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> >                         [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> 
> --
> Mat Martineau
> Intel OTC

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 21342 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 30/04/18 - 09:05:41, Mat Martineau wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mat,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mat Martineau <
> mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >       On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > >
> > >             Hi Mat,
> > >
> > >             Thank you for your review and input!
> > >
> > >             On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <
> mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >                   Hi Matthieu -
> > >
> > >                   On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > >
> > >                         Hello,
> > >
> > >                         Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev
> 0x12, here is a proposition of mail to send to NetDev
> > >             committee. I
> > >                         already put some comments. Note that I have
> followed the submission guidelines from:
> > >                         https://www.netdevconf.org/
> 0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > >
> > >                         Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry
> for the rush but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > >
> > >                               * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph
> Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau
> > >
> > >                         (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman
> (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > >
> > >                         I wrote down the names of people who
> participated in the discussion in the ML and during the weekly
> > >             meetings. I can
> > >                         add more people if more people would like to
> join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> > >                         @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write
> your names there?
> > >
> > >
> > >                   Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most
> sessions have 1 or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too
> > >             many. I'm sure
> > >                   they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit
> the number of presenters.
> > >
> > >
> > >             OK thank you!
> > >             Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are
> too many.
> > >
> > >                               * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from
> the basic to an upstreamable base
> > >
> > >
> > >                         We certainly need a better title, please
> comment!
> > >
> > >
> > >                   "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream
> Future" ?
> > >
> > >
> > >             I was trying to find something that catch the attention
> but it is maybe not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > >
> > >                         > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts,
> hands-on): hands-on
> > >
> > >                         "hands-on" seems to be the correct one
> according to the Submission Types.
> > >                         https://www.netdevconf.org/
> 0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > >
> > >
> > >                   It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree
> that hands-on is the better match.
> > >
> > >
> > >             Thank you!
> > >
> > >                               * Submission type (one of talk,
> presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> > >
> > >                         instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long
> and not to exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the
> > >             technology
> > >                         either through code review or execution and
> interact with the attendees.)
> > >
> > >                         I guess there is a typo here: presentation
> should be replaced by tutorial in the guidelines.
> > >
> > >                               Estimate of length of time for
> presentation: 1h
> > >
> > >
> > >                         That's what we agreed yesterday but I can
> change.
> > >
> > >                               Affiliations of submitters (needed for
> conflict of interest check): Apple,
> > >
> > >                         Intel, Tessares
> > >
> > >                               Description of proposal:
> > >                                   A project to add an implementation
> of the MultiPath TCP protocol to the
> > >
> > >                         Linux kernel is in progress by a small
> community. The goal of this tutorial is to discover what is this
> > >             TCP extension
> > >                         (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases
> already in production by some companies and what are the
> > >             challenges to
> > >                         upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
> discussions and getting feedback from experienced developers
> > >             will help us
> > >                         in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all
> Linux users, a technology already used by millions of
> > >             people.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                   In a bit more detail, we will start
> with a basic introduction of MPTCP.
> > >
> > >                         A few use-cases will be presented with a demo
> to explain how useful this protocol is in today's Internet
> > >             and how it
> > >                         can be extended with API's like Netlink and
> BPF.
> > >
> > >
> > >                   I recognize how Netlink is associated with a
> userspace path manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're
> > >             referring to?
> > >
> > >
> > >             It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend
> MPTCP with eBPF.
> > >             Even if it is not already available in the current
> Open-Source implementation, there is already the possibility to
> > >             get a version with a
> > >             programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> > >
> > >
> > > If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not
> sure it belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion
> > > about it.
> > >
> > >
> > > We are saying that "the [Open-Source] implementation can currently be
> extended with netlink and BPF". It can come later :)
> > >
> > >                         Then we will have some explanations about how
> MPTCP is currently implemented. This current implementation
> > >             is quite
> > >                         intrusive and that is certainly not something
> we would like to have upstream. We would like to express
> > >             what we have
> > >                         in mind to change that, with some samples and
> initiate discussions.
> > >
> > >
> > >                   My edit of the above:
> > >
> > >                   """
> > >
> > >                   A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP
> to the upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce
> > >             the audience to
> > >                   this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases
> already in production, and discuss the challenges in
> > >             converging on an upstream
> > >                   MPTCP implementation.
> > >
> > >
> > >             Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying:
> "discuss with the audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > >             It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the
> interactivity, it is a tutorial, not just a "simple"
> > >             presentation.
> > >
> > >
> > >       I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word
> "discuss" in there for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear
> > >       enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > It was maybe me, maybe no need to insist :-)
> > >
> > >                   We will use the current MPTCP implementation to
> demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's internet,
> > >             and to show how this
> > >                   implementation can currently be extended with
> netlink and BPF. This not only has practical application for
> > >             deploying MPTCP now,
> > >                   but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need
> to evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized
> > >             Linux TCP core we
> > >                   all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing
> MPTCP to the upstream kernel so the technology is available
> > >             to all Linux
> > >                   users.
> > >
> > >
> > >             To "attract" people, should we mention that the current
> implementation is already used by millions of users?
> > >             I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >       Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring
> out how to fit it in to the last sentence :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Could we simply say:
> > >
> > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> utility of the protocol already used by millions of users on today's
> Internet
> >
> > How about "used by millions of devices"? I think it flows a little better
> > than "used by ... users".
>
> +1 on the "used by millions of devices".
>

Good point! :)

Matthieu


>
> Christoph
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mat
> >
> > >
> > > or:
> > >
> > > and to show how this implementation - already used by millions of
> users - can currently be extended with Netlink and BPF.
> > >
> > >
> > >                   """
> > >
> > >                   Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > >
> > >
> > >             Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > >
> > >                                   For more information about this
> project:
> > >
> > >                         https://github.com/multipath-
> tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > >
> > >
> > >             I guess I can keep this, right?
> > >
> > >
> > >       Yes, that was my intent.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will do!
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       Thanks,
> > >
> > >       Mat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                         Please feel free to comment this as well. We
> are still far from the max 350 words limit we found last
> > >             time. But on
> > >                         the other hand, I can no longer find this
> limit on their website :)
> > >
> > >
> > >                   Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your
> work on this proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > >             Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > >
> > >             Matthieu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                   Mat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                         Thank you for your help!
> > >
> > >                         Have a good day/evening,
> > >                         Matthieu
> > >
> > >                         On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > >
> > >                               Hi Matthieu -
> > >
> > >                               On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts
> wrote:
> > >
> > >                                     Hello,
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal
> this summer: July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     We already talked about this event
> on this ML and at our weekly meetings but here is a
> > >                                     summary of the discussions we had:
> > >
> > >                                      - we would like to have a
> presentation there mainly to get feedback and advice from other
> > >                                     kernel developers
> > >                                      - a presentation would clearly
> indicate that this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
> > >                                     get help from more developers
> > >                                      - we would like to indicate that
> having MPTCP upstream is asked by different companies, some
> > >                                     are even ready to contribute ; it
> is then important to have MPTCP upstream
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     Also note that:
> > >
> > >                                      - David Miller will not be
> present in Montréal [1] but other main contributors should be
> > >                                     there (we don't have a list)
> > >
> > >
> > >                               Side note, in the past day David
> reiterated his statement about not attending or supporting the
> > >                               conference:
> > >
> > >                               https://marc.info/?l=linux-
> netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > >
> > >                                      - A presentation by Octavian
> Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
> > >                                     2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> > >                                      - 3 types of presentation are
> available: talks, tutorials and workshops [3]
> > >                                      - Call for Presentation Proposals
> closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     The current idea we briefly
> discussed during our weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
> > >
> > >                                      - It is not useful to give almost
> the same presentation as the one of Octavian
> > >                                      - It will allow us more
> flexibility somehow to explain what is MPTCP, the different
> > >                                     use-cases, why it is important to
> have it upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
> > >                                      - David Miller and many other
> kernel developers will go to LPC in November: a good place to
> > >                                     give a talk this time.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     Do you have any ideas on what we
> could show in this tutorial?
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     I recently discussed with my
> colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
> > >                                     giving different introductions and
> more about MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
> > >
> > >                                      - A first part about a basic
> introduction of MPTCP
> > >                                      - Indicate different use-cases --
> if possible with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
> > >                                     -- asking people to setup
> something is not easy in 1h, max 1h30.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                From the description at [3], either
> "instructor-led" 60-90 minute tutorials or
> > >             "student-participation"
> > >                               2-3 hour sessions are possible. The
> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
> > >             Looking at
> > >                               the schedule, the past two Netdev
> Conferences have had one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think
> > >             it
> > >                               helps to be closer to an hour in length
> to hold the audience's attention.
> > >
> > >                                      - Then trying to have interactive
> discussions or explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> > >                                     implemented or should be
> implemented if it goes upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
> > >                                     extra TCP Options, we need to
> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> > >                                     connection together, we need a
> scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >                               It's difficult to predict how
> interactive an audience will be. I've only attended one Netdev
> > >             Conference,
> > >                               and it seemed like there were a lot more
> people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
> > >             layers
> > >                               (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network
> topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and
> > >             the
> > >                               userspace API might have more audience
> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try
> > >             to
> > >                               strike a balance between topics for the
> broader audience and those with more knowledge of TCP
> > >             internals.
> > >                               (Hopefully some TCP internals people are
> still planning to attend)
> > >
> > >                                      - Of course, we should focus our
> discussions on the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
> > >                                     footprint of MPTCP in the current
> TCP stack: what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
> > >                                     to many previous discussions we
> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
> > >                                     and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >                               The previous talk ([2]) had a section
> like this. I haven't watched it recently, I should look at it
> > >             again
> > >                               to see what kind of questions the
> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful
> > >             to
> > >                               have new content compared to the
> previous session.
> > >
> > >                                      - If we have time, we could
> discuss about how users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
> > >                                     connection, control the path
> manager, maybe the scheduler, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     What do you think about this? Feel
> free to comment and even propose completely different
> > >                                     ideas!
> > >
> > >
> > >                               Thank you for outlining these ideas. I
> see that this topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be
> > >             good to
> > >                               discuss the tutorial there.
> > >
> > >
> > >                                     [1] https://lists.01.org/
> pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> > >                                     [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> v=wftz2cU5SZs
> > >                                     [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/
> 0x12/submit-proposal.html
> > >
> > >
> > >       --
> > >       Mat Martineau
> > >       Intel OTC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tessares SA
> > > Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > www.tessares.net 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> _____________________
> > > DISCLAIMER.
> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> > > addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> > > notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not
> > > the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
> > > information is strictly prohibited.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mat Martineau
> > Intel OTC
>
>


-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 29861 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16843 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
> >
> > I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some times
> to
> > comment this if you want to do so.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Matthieu
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mat,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your review and input!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
> <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> > > intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hi Matthieu -
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
> > >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some
> > >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
> > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > >>>
> > >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the
> > >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > >>>
> > >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
> Martineau
> > >>>>
> > >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself,
> > >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > >>>
> > >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion
> in
> > >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more
> people
> > >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> > >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or
> 2
> > >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give
> us some
> > >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK thank you!
> > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > >
> > > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable
> base
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe
> > > not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > >
> > > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> > >>>
> > >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission
> Types.
> > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is
> the
> > >> better match.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> > >>>>
> > >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5
> > >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either through code
> > >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> > >>>
> > >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by
> > >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
> > >>>
> > >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > >>>
> > >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check):
> > >>>> Apple,
>
> I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
>
> If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
>

Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you from
the list later if needed?

Matthieu


>
> Christoph
>
>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Intel, Tessares
> > >>>
> > >>> Description of proposal:
> > >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
> protocol to
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>
> > >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this
> > >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what
> are the
> > >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies and what
> are
> > >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
> discussions
> > >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us in
> this task
> > >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already
> used by
> > >>> millions of people.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of
> > >>>> MPTCP.
> > >>>>
> > >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful
> this
> > >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with
> API's like
> > >>> Netlink and BPF.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager,
> but
> > >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> > >>
> > >
> > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with
> eBPF.
> > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> > > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with
> a
> > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> > >
> > > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> > >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and that
> is
> > >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would
> like to
> > >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and
> initiate
> > >>> discussions.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> My edit of the above:
> > >>
> > >> """
> > >>
> > >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
> > >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
> > >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and
> > >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
> implementation.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with
> the
> > > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity,
> it
> > > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> > >
> > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> utility of
> > >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation
> can
> > >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
> practical
> > >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the
> APIs and
> > >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
> optimized
> > >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing
> MPTCP
> > >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
> users.
> > >>
> > >
> > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation
> is
> > > already used by millions of users?
> > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> > >
> > > """
> > >>
> > >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > >>
> > >
> > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > >
> > >     For more information about this project:
> > >>>>
> > >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I guess I can keep this, right?
> > >
> > > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max
> > >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no
> longer
> > >>> find this limit on their website :)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
> proposal.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Mat
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Thank you for your help!
> > >>>
> > >>> Have a good day/evening,
> > >>> Matthieu
> > >>>
> > >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Matthieu -
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hello,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th,
> 2018.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly
> > >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
> feedback
> > >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
> > >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream
> > >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
> > >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by
> > >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then
> > >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Also note that:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main
> > >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not
> > >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has
> > >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> > >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and
> > >>>>> workshops [3]
> > >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings
> is to
> > >>>>> give a tutorial:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the
> one of
> > >>>>> Octavian
> > >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is
> MPTCP,
> > >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream
> and what
> > >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
> > >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in
> > >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has
> a
> > >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more
> about MPTCP
> > >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> > >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed
> demo" to
> > >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not
> easy in
> > >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute
> > >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
> possible. The
> > >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking
> at the
> > >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial
> each, of
> > >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length
> to hold
> > >>>> the audience's attention.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about
> > >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it
> goes
> > >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we
> need to
> > >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> connection
> > >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've
> > >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were
> a lot
> > >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
> (XDP, BPF,
> > >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around
> > >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more audience
> > >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
> strike a
> > >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more
> > >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people
> are still
> > >>>> planning to attend)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming
> > >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP
> stack: what
> > >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
> discussions we
> > >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and
> how to
> > >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched
> it
> > >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions
> the
> > >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to
> have
> > >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact
> > >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager,
> maybe the
> > >>>>> scheduler, etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose
> > >>>>> completely different ideas!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our
> > >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> > >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> > >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >> --
> > >> Mat Martineau
> > >> Intel OTC
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > > Engineer
> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > www.tessares.net
> > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > Engineer
> > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > www.tessares.net
> > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > DISCLAIMER.
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the
> > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> addressee
> > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify
> > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
> > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> distributing
> > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
> > strictly prohibited.
>



-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 25412 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16916 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/18 - 08:37:01, Mat Martineau wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mat,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your review and input!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau <
> mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >       Hi Matthieu -
> > >
> > >       On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > >
> > >             Hello,
> > >
> > >             Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here
> is a proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I
> > >             already put some comments. Note that I have followed the
> submission guidelines from:
> > >             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#
> proposals
> > >
> > >             Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the
> rush but the deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > >
> > >                   * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch
> (Apple), Mat Martineau
> > >
> > >             (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and
> myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > >
> > >             I wrote down the names of people who participated in the
> discussion in the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can
> > >             add more people if more people would like to join the
> preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> > >             @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names
> there?
> > >
> > >
> > >       Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have
> 1 or 2 presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure
> > >       they'll give us some feedback if they want to limit the number
> of presenters.
> > >
> > >
> > > OK thank you!
> > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > >
> > >                   * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to
> an upstreamable base
> > >
> > >
> > >             We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > >
> > >
> > >       "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is
> maybe not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > >
> > >             > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on):
> hands-on
> > >
> > >             "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the
> Submission Types.
> > >             https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > >
> > >
> > >       It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that
> hands-on is the better match.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > >                   * Submission type (one of talk, presentation,
> workshop): tutorial,
> > >
> > >             instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to
> exceed 1.5 hours. The instructor will go over the technology
> > >             either through code review or execution and interact with
> the attendees.)
> > >
> > >             I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be
> replaced by tutorial in the guidelines.
> > >
> > >                   Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > >
> > >
> > >             That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > >
> > >                   Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of
> interest check): Apple,
> > >
> > >             Intel, Tessares
> > >
> > >                   Description of proposal:
> > >                       A project to add an implementation of the
> MultiPath TCP protocol to the
> > >
> > >             Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal
> of this tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension
> > >             (RFC 6824), what are the different use-cases already in
> production by some companies and what are the challenges to
> > >             upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive discussions and
> getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
> > >             in this task of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users,
> a technology already used by millions of people.
> > >
> > >
> > >                       In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic
> introduction of MPTCP.
> > >
> > >             A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain
> how useful this protocol is in today's Internet and how it
> > >             can be extended with API's like Netlink and BPF.
> > >
> > >
> > >       I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path
> manager, but what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> > >
> > >
> > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with
> eBPF.
> > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with a
> > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> >
> > If we don't have something specific to our effort with BPF, I'm not sure
> it
> > belongs in the summary. But I don't have a strong opinion about it.
>
> I agree that we don't need BPF in the summary here. We can talk about its
> potential during the presentation though. But, here in the summary it is a
> bit more distracting IMO.
>

We can remove it, no problem!

Can we then say: (...) be extended with API's like Netlink.


>
> >
> > >
> > >             Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is
> currently implemented. This current implementation is quite
> > >             intrusive and that is certainly not something we would
> like to have upstream. We would like to express what we have
> > >             in mind to change that, with some samples and initiate
> discussions.
> > >
> > >
> > >       My edit of the above:
> > >
> > >       """
> > >
> > >       A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the
> upstream Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
> > >       this TCP extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in
> production, and discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream
> > >       MPTCP implementation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with
> the audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity,
> it is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> >
> > I think it's ok to mention that - while I left the word "discuss" in
> there
> > for that reason, maybe that's not obvious or clear enough.
>
> I think that "discuss with the audience" or "have interactive discussions"
> makes it more clear what we want to achieve.
>

OK, I will then mention it!
Thank you for your comments!

Matthieu


>
>
> Christoph
>
> > >       We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> utility of the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
> > >       implementation can currently be extended with netlink and BPF.
> This not only has practical application for deploying MPTCP now,
> > >       but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to evolve
> in order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
> > >       all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the
> upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
> > >       users.
> > >
> > >
> > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation
> is already used by millions of users?
> > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> >
> > Sure. I liked that in your text, but ran out of time figuring out how to
> fit
> > it in to the last sentence :)
> >
> > >
> > >       """
> > >
> > >       Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > >
> > >                       For more information about this project:
> > >
> > >             https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess I can keep this, right?
> >
> > Yes, that was my intent.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mat
> >
> >
> > >
> > >             Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far
> from the max 350 words limit we found last time. But on
> > >             the other hand, I can no longer find this limit on their
> website :)
> > >
> > >
> > >       Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
> proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       Mat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >             Thank you for your help!
> > >
> > >             Have a good day/evening,
> > >             Matthieu
> > >
> > >             On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > >
> > >                   Hi Matthieu -
> > >
> > >                   On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > >
> > >                         Hello,
> > >
> > >
> > >                         NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer:
> July 11th to 13th, 2018.
> > >
> > >
> > >                         We already talked about this event on this ML
> and at our weekly meetings but here is a
> > >                         summary of the discussions we had:
> > >
> > >                          - we would like to have a presentation there
> mainly to get feedback and advice from other
> > >                         kernel developers
> > >                          - a presentation would clearly indicate that
> this MPTCP Upstream project exists and we could
> > >                         get help from more developers
> > >                          - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP
> upstream is asked by different companies, some
> > >                         are even ready to contribute ; it is then
> important to have MPTCP upstream
> > >
> > >
> > >                         Also note that:
> > >
> > >                          - David Miller will not be present in
> Montréal [1] but other main contributors should be
> > >                         there (we don't have a list)
> > >
> > >
> > >                   Side note, in the past day David reiterated his
> statement about not attending or supporting the
> > >                   conference:
> > >
> > >                   https://marc.info/?l=linux-
> netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > >
> > >                          - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about
> "MPTCP Upstreaming" has already been given in
> > >                         2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> > >                          - 3 types of presentation are available:
> talks, tutorials and workshops [3]
> > >                          - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on
> May 1st, 2018.
> > >
> > >
> > >                         The current idea we briefly discussed during
> our weekly meetings is to give a tutorial:
> > >
> > >                          - It is not useful to give almost the same
> presentation as the one of Octavian
> > >                          - It will allow us more flexibility somehow
> to explain what is MPTCP, the different
> > >                         use-cases, why it is important to have it
> upstream and what problems we are currently facing.
> > >                          - David Miller and many other kernel
> developers will go to LPC in November: a good place to
> > >                         give a talk this time.
> > >
> > >
> > >                         Do you have any ideas on what we could show in
> this tutorial?
> > >
> > >
> > >                         I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier
> Bonaventure who has a lot of experiences in
> > >                         giving different introductions and more about
> MPTCP and here is what he suggests:
> > >
> > >                          - A first part about a basic introduction of
> MPTCP
> > >                          - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible
> with a "closed demo" to be sure it is working
> > >                         -- asking people to setup something is not
> easy in 1h, max 1h30.
> > >
> > >
> > >                    From the description at [3], either
> "instructor-led" 60-90 minute tutorials or "student-participation"
> > >                   2-3 hour sessions are possible. The closed demo maps
> well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking at
> > >                   the schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have
> had one tutorial each, of 60-70 minutes. I think it
> > >                   helps to be closer to an hour in length to hold the
> audience's attention.
> > >
> > >                          - Then trying to have interactive discussions
> or explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> > >                         implemented or should be implemented if it
> goes upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have
> > >                         extra TCP Options, we need to support
> middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> > >                         connection together, we need a scheduler, a
> PM, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >                   It's difficult to predict how interactive an
> audience will be. I've only attended one Netdev Conference,
> > >                   and it seemed like there were a lot more people with
> expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
> > >                   (XDP, BPF, TC, netfilter), and network
> topology/simulation. Discussion around middlebox support and the
> > >                   userspace API might have more audience interaction.
> If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
> > >                   strike a balance between topics for the broader
> audience and those with more knowledge of TCP internals.
> > >                   (Hopefully some TCP internals people are still
> planning to attend)
> > >
> > >                          - Of course, we should focus our discussions
> on the upstreaming aspect, e.g. reducing the
> > >                         footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP stack:
> what are we allow to do, what not. It is linked
> > >                         to many previous discussions we had on this
> ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls
> > >                         and how to reduce the impact, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >                   The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I
> haven't watched it recently, I should look at it again
> > >                   to see what kind of questions the audience was
> asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to
> > >                   have new content compared to the previous session.
> > >
> > >                          - If we have time, we could discuss about how
> users could interact with MPTCP: enable it per
> > >                         connection, control the path manager, maybe
> the scheduler, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >                         What do you think about this? Feel free to
> comment and even propose completely different
> > >                         ideas!
> > >
> > >
> > >                   Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this
> topic is on our meeting agenda so it will be good to
> > >                   discuss the tutorial there.
> > >
> > >
> > >                         [1] https://lists.01.org/
> pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> > >                         [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> v=wftz2cU5SZs
> > >                         [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/
> 0x12/submit-proposal.html
> >
> > --
> > Mat Martineau
> > Intel OTC
>
>


-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 23577 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Christoph Paasch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 17971 bytes --]

On 30/04/18 - 19:34:10, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
> > >
> > > I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some times
> > to
> > > comment this if you want to do so.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Mat,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your review and input!
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
> > <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> > > > intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Matthieu -
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
> > > >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some
> > > >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
> > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the
> > > >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
> > Martineau
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself,
> > > >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion
> > in
> > > >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more
> > people
> > > >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> > > >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or
> > 2
> > > >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give
> > us some
> > > >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > OK thank you!
> > > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > > >
> > > > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable
> > base
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe
> > > > not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > > >
> > > > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission
> > Types.
> > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is
> > the
> > > >> better match.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Thank you!
> > > >
> > > > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5
> > > >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either through code
> > > >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by
> > > >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check):
> > > >>>> Apple,
> >
> > I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
> >
> > If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
> >
> 
> Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you from
> the list later if needed?

Can you wait a little bit? I am trying to get a hold of the one who can tell
me "yes" or "no".


Christoph

> 
> Matthieu
> 
> 
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Intel, Tessares
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Description of proposal:
> > > >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
> > protocol to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this
> > > >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what
> > are the
> > > >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies and what
> > are
> > > >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
> > discussions
> > > >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us in
> > this task
> > > >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already
> > used by
> > > >>> millions of people.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of
> > > >>>> MPTCP.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful
> > this
> > > >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with
> > API's like
> > > >>> Netlink and BPF.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager,
> > but
> > > >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with
> > eBPF.
> > > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> > > > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with
> > a
> > > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> > > >
> > > > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> > > >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and that
> > is
> > > >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would
> > like to
> > > >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and
> > initiate
> > > >>> discussions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> My edit of the above:
> > > >>
> > > >> """
> > > >>
> > > >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
> > > >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
> > > >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and
> > > >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
> > implementation.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with
> > the
> > > > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity,
> > it
> > > > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> > > >
> > > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> > utility of
> > > >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation
> > can
> > > >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
> > practical
> > > >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the
> > APIs and
> > > >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
> > optimized
> > > >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing
> > MPTCP
> > > >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
> > users.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation
> > is
> > > > already used by millions of users?
> > > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> > > >
> > > > """
> > > >>
> > > >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > > >
> > > >     For more information about this project:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > I guess I can keep this, right?
> > > >
> > > > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max
> > > >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no
> > longer
> > > >>> find this limit on their website :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
> > proposal.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > > >
> > > > Matthieu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Mat
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thank you for your help!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Have a good day/evening,
> > > >>> Matthieu
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Matthieu -
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hello,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th,
> > 2018.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly
> > > >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
> > feedback
> > > >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
> > > >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream
> > > >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
> > > >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by
> > > >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then
> > > >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Also note that:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main
> > > >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not
> > > >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has
> > > >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> > > >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and
> > > >>>>> workshops [3]
> > > >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings
> > is to
> > > >>>>> give a tutorial:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the
> > one of
> > > >>>>> Octavian
> > > >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is
> > MPTCP,
> > > >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream
> > and what
> > > >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
> > > >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in
> > > >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has
> > a
> > > >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more
> > about MPTCP
> > > >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> > > >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed
> > demo" to
> > > >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not
> > easy in
> > > >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute
> > > >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
> > possible. The
> > > >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking
> > at the
> > > >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial
> > each, of
> > > >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length
> > to hold
> > > >>>> the audience's attention.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about
> > > >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it
> > goes
> > > >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we
> > need to
> > > >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> > connection
> > > >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've
> > > >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were
> > a lot
> > > >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
> > (XDP, BPF,
> > > >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around
> > > >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more audience
> > > >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
> > strike a
> > > >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more
> > > >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people
> > are still
> > > >>>> planning to attend)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming
> > > >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP
> > stack: what
> > > >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
> > discussions we
> > > >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and
> > how to
> > > >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched
> > it
> > > >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions
> > the
> > > >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to
> > have
> > > >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact
> > > >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager,
> > maybe the
> > > >>>>> scheduler, etc.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose
> > > >>>>> completely different ideas!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our
> > > >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> > > >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> > > >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Mat Martineau
> > > >> Intel OTC
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > > > Engineer
> > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > > www.tessares.net
> > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > > Engineer
> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > www.tessares.net
> > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > DISCLAIMER.
> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> > the
> > > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> > addressee
> > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> > notify
> > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
> > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> > distributing
> > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
> > > strictly prohibited.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> Engineer
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net
> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
> strictly prohibited.

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Christoph Paasch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 19385 bytes --]

On 30/04/18 - 11:17:06, Christoph Paasch wrote:
> On 30/04/18 - 19:34:10, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > > Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
> > > >
> > > > I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some times
> > > to
> > > > comment this if you want to do so.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Matthieu
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Mat,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your review and input!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
> > > <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> > > > > intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Matthieu -
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hello,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
> > > > >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put some
> > > > >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines from:
> > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush but the
> > > > >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
> > > Martineau
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and myself,
> > > > >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the discussion
> > > in
> > > > >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people if more
> > > people
> > > > >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this tutorial.
> > > > >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions have 1 or
> > > 2
> > > > >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll give
> > > us some
> > > > >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > OK thank you!
> > > > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an upstreamable
> > > base
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it is maybe
> > > > > not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the Submission
> > > Types.
> > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that hands-on is
> > > the
> > > > >> better match.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you!
> > > > >
> > > > > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop): tutorial,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed 1.5
> > > > >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either through code
> > > > >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced by
> > > > >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check):
> > > > >>>> Apple,
> > >
> > > I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
> > >
> > > If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
> > >
> > 
> > Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you from
> > the list later if needed?
> 
> Can you wait a little bit? I am trying to get a hold of the one who can tell
> me "yes" or "no".

Matthieu, you can leave the Apple-affiliation in for now.

At worst, we can always remove me from the list.


Sorry for the delay on this here.

From my point-of-view, you can go ahead and submit the proposal.


Christoph



> 
> 
> Christoph
> 
> > 
> > Matthieu
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Christoph
> > >
> > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Intel, Tessares
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Description of proposal:
> > > > >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
> > > protocol to
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of this
> > > > >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824), what
> > > are the
> > > > >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies and what
> > > are
> > > > >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
> > > discussions
> > > > >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us in
> > > this task
> > > > >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology already
> > > used by
> > > > >>> millions of people.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic introduction of
> > > > >>>> MPTCP.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how useful
> > > this
> > > > >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with
> > > API's like
> > > > >>> Netlink and BPF.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path manager,
> > > but
> > > > >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP with
> > > eBPF.
> > > > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> > > > > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a version with
> > > a
> > > > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> > > > >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive and that
> > > is
> > > > >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We would
> > > like to
> > > > >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples and
> > > initiate
> > > > >>> discussions.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My edit of the above:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> """
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
> > > > >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
> > > > >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in production, and
> > > > >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
> > > implementation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss with
> > > the
> > > > > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > > > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the interactivity,
> > > it
> > > > > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> > > > >
> > > > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> > > utility of
> > > > >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this implementation
> > > can
> > > > >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
> > > practical
> > > > >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how the
> > > APIs and
> > > > >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
> > > optimized
> > > > >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing
> > > MPTCP
> > > > >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all Linux
> > > users.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current implementation
> > > is
> > > > > already used by millions of users?
> > > > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > """
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > > > >
> > > > >     For more information about this project:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > I guess I can keep this, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from the max
> > > > >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I can no
> > > longer
> > > > >>> find this limit on their website :)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
> > > proposal.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthieu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mat
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Thank you for your help!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Have a good day/evening,
> > > > >>> Matthieu
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Matthieu -
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hello,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to 13th,
> > > 2018.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our weekly
> > > > >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
> > > feedback
> > > > >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
> > > > >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP Upstream
> > > > >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
> > > > >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is asked by
> > > > >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it is then
> > > > >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Also note that:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but other main
> > > > >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement about not
> > > > >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP Upstreaming" has
> > > > >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> > > > >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials and
> > > > >>>>> workshops [3]
> > > > >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly meetings
> > > is to
> > > > >>>>> give a tutorial:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as the
> > > one of
> > > > >>>>> Octavian
> > > > >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what is
> > > MPTCP,
> > > > >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it upstream
> > > and what
> > > > >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
> > > > >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to LPC in
> > > > >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure who has
> > > a
> > > > >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more
> > > about MPTCP
> > > > >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> > > > >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed
> > > demo" to
> > > > >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is not
> > > easy in
> > > > >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90 minute
> > > > >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
> > > possible. The
> > > > >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category. Looking
> > > at the
> > > > >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one tutorial
> > > each, of
> > > > >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in length
> > > to hold
> > > > >>>> the audience's attention.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or explanations about
> > > > >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented if it
> > > goes
> > > > >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP Options, we
> > > need to
> > > > >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> > > connection
> > > > >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will be. I've
> > > > >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there were
> > > a lot
> > > > >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower layers
> > > (XDP, BPF,
> > > > >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion around
> > > > >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more audience
> > > > >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
> > > strike a
> > > > >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those with more
> > > > >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals people
> > > are still
> > > > >>>> planning to attend)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the upstreaming
> > > > >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current TCP
> > > stack: what
> > > > >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
> > > discussions we
> > > > >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function calls and
> > > how to
> > > > >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't watched
> > > it
> > > > >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of questions
> > > the
> > > > >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be careful to
> > > have
> > > > >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could interact
> > > > >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path manager,
> > > maybe the
> > > > >>>>> scheduler, etc.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even propose
> > > > >>>>> completely different ideas!
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is on our
> > > > >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial there.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> > > > >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> > > > >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Mat Martineau
> > > > >> Intel OTC
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > > > > Engineer
> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > > > www.tessares.net
> > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > > > Engineer
> > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > > www.tessares.net
> > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DISCLAIMER.
> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> > > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> > > the
> > > > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> > > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> > > addressee
> > > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> > > notify
> > > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
> > > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> > > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> > > distributing
> > > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
> > > > strictly prohibited.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > Engineer
> > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > www.tessares.net
> > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
> > DISCLAIMER.
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
> > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
> > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
> > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
> > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
> > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
> > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
> > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
> > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
> > strictly prohibited.
> _______________________________________________
> mptcp mailing list
> mptcp(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/mptcp

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 21970 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/18 - 11:17:06, Christoph Paasch wrote:
> > On 30/04/18 - 19:34:10, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > > > Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
> > > > >
> > > > > I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some
> times
> > > > to
> > > > > comment this if you want to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Matthieu
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mat,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your review and input!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
> > > > <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> > > > > > intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi Matthieu -
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hello,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
> > > > > >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already put
> some
> > > > > >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines
> from:
> > > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposals
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush
> but the
> > > > > >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
> > > > Martineau
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and
> myself,
> > > > > >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the
> discussion
> > > > in
> > > > > >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people
> if more
> > > > people
> > > > > >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this
> tutorial.
> > > > > >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions
> have 1 or
> > > > 2
> > > > > >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll
> give
> > > > us some
> > > > > >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK thank you!
> > > > > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too many.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an
> upstreamable
> > > > base
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it
> is maybe
> > > > > > not needed for these kind of presentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the
> Submission
> > > > Types.
> > > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that
> hands-on is
> > > > the
> > > > > >> better match.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop):
> tutorial,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to exceed
> 1.5
> > > > > >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either
> through code
> > > > > >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced
> by
> > > > > >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest
> check):
> > > > > >>>> Apple,
> > > >
> > > > I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
> > > >
> > > > If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you
> from
> > > the list later if needed?
> >
> > Can you wait a little bit? I am trying to get a hold of the one who can
> tell
> > me "yes" or "no".
>
> Matthieu, you can leave the Apple-affiliation in for now.
>
> At worst, we can always remove me from the list.
>
>
> Sorry for the delay on this here.
>

All good, I can wait more if you prefer!

From my point-of-view, you can go ahead and submit the proposal.
>

Great!
Let me recompile all bits!

Matthieu


>
> Christoph
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> > >
> > > Matthieu
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Christoph
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Intel, Tessares
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Description of proposal:
> > > > > >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
> > > > protocol to
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of
> this
> > > > > >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC 6824),
> what
> > > > are the
> > > > > >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies
> and what
> > > > are
> > > > > >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
> > > > discussions
> > > > > >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
> in
> > > > this task
> > > > > >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology
> already
> > > > used by
> > > > > >>> millions of people.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic
> introduction of
> > > > > >>>> MPTCP.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how
> useful
> > > > this
> > > > > >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended with
> > > > API's like
> > > > > >>> Netlink and BPF.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path
> manager,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend MPTCP
> with
> > > > eBPF.
> > > > > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> > > > > > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a
> version with
> > > > a
> > > > > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> > > > > >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive
> and that
> > > > is
> > > > > >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We
> would
> > > > like to
> > > > > >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some samples
> and
> > > > initiate
> > > > > >>> discussions.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> My edit of the above:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> """
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the
> upstream
> > > > > >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this
> TCP
> > > > > >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in
> production, and
> > > > > >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
> > > > implementation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying: "discuss
> with
> > > > the
> > > > > > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> > > > > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the
> interactivity,
> > > > it
> > > > > > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> > > > utility of
> > > > > >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
> implementation
> > > > can
> > > > > >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
> > > > practical
> > > > > >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how
> the
> > > > APIs and
> > > > > >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
> > > > optimized
> > > > > >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for
> bringing
> > > > MPTCP
> > > > > >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all
> Linux
> > > > users.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current
> implementation
> > > > is
> > > > > > already used by millions of users?
> > > > > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > """
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     For more information about this project:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > I guess I can keep this, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from
> the max
> > > > > >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I
> can no
> > > > longer
> > > > > >>> find this limit on their website :)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
> > > > proposal.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthieu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Mat
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Thank you for your help!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Have a good day/evening,
> > > > > >>> Matthieu
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi Matthieu -
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hello,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to
> 13th,
> > > > 2018.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our
> weekly
> > > > > >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
> > > > feedback
> > > > > >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
> > > > > >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP
> Upstream
> > > > > >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
> > > > > >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is
> asked by
> > > > > >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it
> is then
> > > > > >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Also note that:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but
> other main
> > > > > >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement
> about not
> > > > > >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP
> Upstreaming" has
> > > > > >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> > > > > >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials
> and
> > > > > >>>>> workshops [3]
> > > > > >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly
> meetings
> > > > is to
> > > > > >>>>> give a tutorial:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as
> the
> > > > one of
> > > > > >>>>> Octavian
> > > > > >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain what
> is
> > > > MPTCP,
> > > > > >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it
> upstream
> > > > and what
> > > > > >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
> > > > > >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to
> LPC in
> > > > > >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this tutorial?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure
> who has
> > > > a
> > > > > >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and more
> > > > about MPTCP
> > > > > >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> > > > > >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a "closed
> > > > demo" to
> > > > > >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something is
> not
> > > > easy in
> > > > > >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90
> minute
> > > > > >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
> > > > possible. The
> > > > > >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
> Looking
> > > > at the
> > > > > >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one
> tutorial
> > > > each, of
> > > > > >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in
> length
> > > > to hold
> > > > > >>>> the audience's attention.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or
> explanations about
> > > > > >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented
> if it
> > > > goes
> > > > > >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP
> Options, we
> > > > need to
> > > > > >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> > > > connection
> > > > > >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will
> be. I've
> > > > > >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like there
> were
> > > > a lot
> > > > > >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
> layers
> > > > (XDP, BPF,
> > > > > >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion
> around
> > > > > >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more
> audience
> > > > > >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try to
> > > > strike a
> > > > > >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those
> with more
> > > > > >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals
> people
> > > > are still
> > > > > >>>> planning to attend)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the
> upstreaming
> > > > > >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current
> TCP
> > > > stack: what
> > > > > >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
> > > > discussions we
> > > > > >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function
> calls and
> > > > how to
> > > > > >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't
> watched
> > > > it
> > > > > >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of
> questions
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be
> careful to
> > > > have
> > > > > >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could
> interact
> > > > > >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path
> manager,
> > > > maybe the
> > > > > >>>>> scheduler, etc.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even
> propose
> > > > > >>>>> completely different ideas!
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic is
> on our
> > > > > >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial
> there.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/mptcp/2018-March/
> 000379.html
> > > > > >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> > > > > >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Mat Martineau
> > > > > >> Intel OTC
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts
> | R&D
> > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > > > > www.tessares.net
> > > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> > > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts |
> R&D
> > > > > Engineer
> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > > > www.tessares.net
> > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> > > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DISCLAIMER.
> > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> > > > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> whom they
> > > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify
> > > > the
> > > > > system manager. This message contains confidential information and
> is
> > > > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> > > > addressee
> > > > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> > > > notify
> > > > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
> by
> > > > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> > > > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> > > > distributing
> > > > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
> information is
> > > > > strictly prohibited.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > > Engineer
> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > > www.tessares.net
> > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > DISCLAIMER.
> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they
> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the
> > > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> addressee
> > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify
> > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
> > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> distributing
> > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
> is
> > > strictly prohibited.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mptcp mailing list
> > mptcp(a)lists.01.org
> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/mptcp
>



-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 35351 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Matthieu Baerts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 24718 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/18 - 11:17:06, Christoph Paasch wrote:
>> > On 30/04/18 - 19:34:10, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> > > > > Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some
>> times
>> > > > to
>> > > > > comment this if you want to do so.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > Matthieu
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
>> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Mat,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you for your review and input!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
>> > > > <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
>> > > > > > intel.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Hi Matthieu -
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Hello,
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
>> > > > > >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already
>> put some
>> > > > > >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines
>> from:
>> > > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposa
>> ls
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush
>> but the
>> > > > > >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
>> > > > Martineau
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and
>> myself,
>> > > > > >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the
>> discussion
>> > > > in
>> > > > > >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people
>> if more
>> > > > people
>> > > > > >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this
>> tutorial.
>> > > > > >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions
>> have 1 or
>> > > > 2
>> > > > > >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll
>> give
>> > > > us some
>> > > > > >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > OK thank you!
>> > > > > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too
>> many.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an
>> upstreamable
>> > > > base
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it
>> is maybe
>> > > > > > not needed for these kind of presentation.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the
>> Submission
>> > > > Types.
>> > > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that
>> hands-on is
>> > > > the
>> > > > > >> better match.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop):
>> tutorial,
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to
>> exceed 1.5
>> > > > > >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either
>> through code
>> > > > > >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced
>> by
>> > > > > >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest
>> check):
>> > > > > >>>> Apple,
>> > > >
>> > > > I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
>> > > >
>> > > > If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you
>> from
>> > > the list later if needed?
>> >
>> > Can you wait a little bit? I am trying to get a hold of the one who can
>> tell
>> > me "yes" or "no".
>>
>> Matthieu, you can leave the Apple-affiliation in for now.
>>
>> At worst, we can always remove me from the list.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the delay on this here.
>>
>
> All good, I can wait more if you prefer!
>
> From my point-of-view, you can go ahead and submit the proposal.
>>
>
> Great!
> Let me recompile all bits!
>

Here is what I am going to send:

Names of the submitters: Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau (Intel),
> Peter Krystad (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> Title of the submission: Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream
> Future
> Label: hands-on
> Submission type: tutorial
> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
> Intel, Tessares
> Description of proposal:
>     A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
> extension (RFC 6824), show some use-cases already in production and have
> interactive discussions of the challenges in converging on an upstream
> MPTCP implementation.
>
>     We will use the current MPTCP implementation, already used by millions
> of devices, to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's Internet
> and to show how this implementation can currently be extended with APIs
> like Netlink. This not only has practical application for deploying
> Multipath TCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to
> evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
> all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream
> kernel so the technology is available to all Linux users.
>
>     For more information about this project:
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>

I don't want to bother you for a new review. I hope and I guess it is fine
for everybody :)

Matthieu


> Matthieu
>
>
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Christoph
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Matthieu
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Christoph
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>> Intel, Tessares
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Description of proposal:
>> > > > > >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
>> > > > protocol to
>> > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of
>> this
>> > > > > >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC
>> 6824), what
>> > > > are the
>> > > > > >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies
>> and what
>> > > > are
>> > > > > >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
>> > > > discussions
>> > > > > >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
>> in
>> > > > this task
>> > > > > >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology
>> already
>> > > > used by
>> > > > > >>> millions of people.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic
>> introduction of
>> > > > > >>>> MPTCP.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how
>> useful
>> > > > this
>> > > > > >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended
>> with
>> > > > API's like
>> > > > > >>> Netlink and BPF.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path
>> manager,
>> > > > but
>> > > > > >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend
>> MPTCP with
>> > > > eBPF.
>> > > > > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
>> > > > > > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a
>> version with
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>> > > > > >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive
>> and that
>> > > > is
>> > > > > >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We
>> would
>> > > > like to
>> > > > > >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some
>> samples and
>> > > > initiate
>> > > > > >>> discussions.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> My edit of the above:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> """
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the
>> upstream
>> > > > > >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
>> this TCP
>> > > > > >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in
>> production, and
>> > > > > >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
>> > > > implementation.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying:
>> "discuss with
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
>> > > > > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the
>> interactivity,
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
>> > > > utility of
>> > > > > >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
>> implementation
>> > > > can
>> > > > > >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
>> > > > practical
>> > > > > >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how
>> the
>> > > > APIs and
>> > > > > >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
>> > > > optimized
>> > > > > >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for
>> bringing
>> > > > MPTCP
>> > > > > >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all
>> Linux
>> > > > users.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current
>> implementation
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > already used by millions of users?
>> > > > > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > """
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >     For more information about this project:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > > I guess I can keep this, right?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from
>> the max
>> > > > > >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I
>> can no
>> > > > longer
>> > > > > >>> find this limit on their website :)
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
>> > > > proposal.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Matthieu
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Mat
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> Thank you for your help!
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Have a good day/evening,
>> > > > > >>> Matthieu
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Hi Matthieu -
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Hello,
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to
>> 13th,
>> > > > 2018.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our
>> weekly
>> > > > > >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
>> > > > feedback
>> > > > > >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
>> > > > > >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP
>> Upstream
>> > > > > >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
>> > > > > >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is
>> asked by
>> > > > > >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it
>> is then
>> > > > > >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Also note that:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but
>> other main
>> > > > > >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement
>> about not
>> > > > > >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP
>> Upstreaming" has
>> > > > > >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>> > > > > >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials
>> and
>> > > > > >>>>> workshops [3]
>> > > > > >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly
>> meetings
>> > > > is to
>> > > > > >>>>> give a tutorial:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as
>> the
>> > > > one of
>> > > > > >>>>> Octavian
>> > > > > >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain
>> what is
>> > > > MPTCP,
>> > > > > >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it
>> upstream
>> > > > and what
>> > > > > >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
>> > > > > >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to
>> LPC in
>> > > > > >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this
>> tutorial?
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure
>> who has
>> > > > a
>> > > > > >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and
>> more
>> > > > about MPTCP
>> > > > > >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>> > > > > >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a
>> "closed
>> > > > demo" to
>> > > > > >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something
>> is not
>> > > > easy in
>> > > > > >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90
>> minute
>> > > > > >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
>> > > > possible. The
>> > > > > >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
>> Looking
>> > > > at the
>> > > > > >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one
>> tutorial
>> > > > each, of
>> > > > > >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in
>> length
>> > > > to hold
>> > > > > >>>> the audience's attention.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or
>> explanations about
>> > > > > >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented
>> if it
>> > > > goes
>> > > > > >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP
>> Options, we
>> > > > need to
>> > > > > >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
>> > > > connection
>> > > > > >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will
>> be. I've
>> > > > > >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like
>> there were
>> > > > a lot
>> > > > > >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
>> layers
>> > > > (XDP, BPF,
>> > > > > >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion
>> around
>> > > > > >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more
>> audience
>> > > > > >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try
>> to
>> > > > strike a
>> > > > > >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those
>> with more
>> > > > > >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals
>> people
>> > > > are still
>> > > > > >>>> planning to attend)
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the
>> upstreaming
>> > > > > >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current
>> TCP
>> > > > stack: what
>> > > > > >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
>> > > > discussions we
>> > > > > >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function
>> calls and
>> > > > how to
>> > > > > >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't
>> watched
>> > > > it
>> > > > > >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of
>> questions
>> > > > the
>> > > > > >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be
>> careful to
>> > > > have
>> > > > > >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could
>> interact
>> > > > > >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path
>> manager,
>> > > > maybe the
>> > > > > >>>>> scheduler, etc.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even
>> propose
>> > > > > >>>>> completely different ideas!
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic
>> is on our
>> > > > > >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial
>> there.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail
>> /mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>> > > > > >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>> > > > > >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >> --
>> > > > > >> Mat Martineau
>> > > > > >> Intel OTC
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts
>> | R&D
>> > > > > > Engineer
>> > > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>> > > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>> > > > > > www.tessares.net
>> > > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>> > > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
>> > > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts |
>> R&D
>> > > > > Engineer
>> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>> > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>> > > > > www.tessares.net
>> > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>> > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
>> > > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > DISCLAIMER.
>> > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
>> > > > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
>> whom they
>> > > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
>> notify
>> > > > the
>> > > > > system manager. This message contains confidential information
>> and is
>> > > > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
>> > > > addressee
>> > > > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
>> > > > notify
>> > > > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
>> by
>> > > > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not
>> the
>> > > > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
>> > > > distributing
>> > > > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
>> information is
>> > > > > strictly prohibited.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
>> > > Engineer
>> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>> > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>> > > www.tessares.net
>> > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>> > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ot
>> tignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > DISCLAIMER.
>> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
>> > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>> they
>> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>> the
>> > > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
>> addressee
>> > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
>> notify
>> > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>> > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>> > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
>> distributing
>> > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
>> is
>> > > strictly prohibited.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > mptcp mailing list
>> > mptcp(a)lists.01.org
>> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/mptcp
>>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> Engineer
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net
> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>



-- 
[image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
<https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>

-- 


DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited.

[-- Attachment #2: attachment.html --]
[-- Type: text/html, Size: 39968 bytes --]

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Christoph Paasch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 26229 bytes --]

On 30/04/18 - 21:03:31, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/04/18 - 11:17:06, Christoph Paasch wrote:
> >> > On 30/04/18 - 19:34:10, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some
> >> times
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > comment this if you want to do so.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > Matthieu
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
> >> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi Mat,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you for your review and input!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
> >> > > > <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
> >> > > > > > intel.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Hi Matthieu -
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Hello,
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
> >> > > > > >>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already
> >> put some
> >> > > > > >>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines
> >> from:
> >> > > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposa
> >> ls
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush
> >> but the
> >> > > > > >>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
> >> > > > Martineau
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and
> >> myself,
> >> > > > > >>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the
> >> discussion
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > >>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people
> >> if more
> >> > > > people
> >> > > > > >>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this
> >> tutorial.
> >> > > > > >>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions
> >> have 1 or
> >> > > > 2
> >> > > > > >> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll
> >> give
> >> > > > us some
> >> > > > > >> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > OK thank you!
> >> > > > > > Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too
> >> many.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an
> >> upstreamable
> >> > > > base
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it
> >> is maybe
> >> > > > > > not needed for these kind of presentation.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the
> >> Submission
> >> > > > Types.
> >> > > > > >>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that
> >> hands-on is
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > >> better match.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop):
> >> tutorial,
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to
> >> exceed 1.5
> >> > > > > >>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either
> >> through code
> >> > > > > >>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced
> >> by
> >> > > > > >>> tutorial in the guidelines.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest
> >> check):
> >> > > > > >>>> Apple,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you
> >> from
> >> > > the list later if needed?
> >> >
> >> > Can you wait a little bit? I am trying to get a hold of the one who can
> >> tell
> >> > me "yes" or "no".
> >>
> >> Matthieu, you can leave the Apple-affiliation in for now.
> >>
> >> At worst, we can always remove me from the list.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry for the delay on this here.
> >>
> >
> > All good, I can wait more if you prefer!
> >
> > From my point-of-view, you can go ahead and submit the proposal.
> >>
> >
> > Great!
> > Let me recompile all bits!
> >
> 
> Here is what I am going to send:
> 
> Names of the submitters: Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau (Intel),
> > Peter Krystad (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
> > Title of the submission: Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream
> > Future
> > Label: hands-on
> > Submission type: tutorial
> > Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
> > Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
> > Intel, Tessares
> > Description of proposal:
> >     A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
> > Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
> > extension (RFC 6824), show some use-cases already in production and have
> > interactive discussions of the challenges in converging on an upstream
> > MPTCP implementation.
> >
> >     We will use the current MPTCP implementation, already used by millions
> > of devices, to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's Internet
> > and to show how this implementation can currently be extended with APIs
> > like Netlink. This not only has practical application for deploying
> > Multipath TCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to
> > evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
> > all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream
> > kernel so the technology is available to all Linux users.
> >
> >     For more information about this project:
> > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> >
> 
> I don't want to bother you for a new review. I hope and I guess it is fine
> for everybody :)

Awesome!


Christoph

> 
> Matthieu
> 
> 
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Christoph
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Christoph
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Matthieu
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Christoph
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>> Intel, Tessares
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Description of proposal:
> >> > > > > >>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
> >> > > > protocol to
> >> > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of
> >> this
> >> > > > > >>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC
> >> 6824), what
> >> > > > are the
> >> > > > > >>> different use-cases already in production by some companies
> >> and what
> >> > > > are
> >> > > > > >>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
> >> > > > discussions
> >> > > > > >>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
> >> in
> >> > > > this task
> >> > > > > >>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology
> >> already
> >> > > > used by
> >> > > > > >>> millions of people.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic
> >> introduction of
> >> > > > > >>>> MPTCP.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how
> >> useful
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > >>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended
> >> with
> >> > > > API's like
> >> > > > > >>> Netlink and BPF.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path
> >> manager,
> >> > > > but
> >> > > > > >> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend
> >> MPTCP with
> >> > > > eBPF.
> >> > > > > > Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
> >> > > > > > implementation, there is already the possibility to get a
> >> version with
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
> >> > > > > >>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive
> >> and that
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > >>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We
> >> would
> >> > > > like to
> >> > > > > >>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some
> >> samples and
> >> > > > initiate
> >> > > > > >>> discussions.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> My edit of the above:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> """
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the
> >> upstream
> >> > > > > >> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
> >> this TCP
> >> > > > > >> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in
> >> production, and
> >> > > > > >> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
> >> > > > implementation.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying:
> >> "discuss with
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
> >> > > > > > It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the
> >> interactivity,
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
> >> > > > utility of
> >> > > > > >> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
> >> implementation
> >> > > > can
> >> > > > > >> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
> >> > > > practical
> >> > > > > >> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how
> >> the
> >> > > > APIs and
> >> > > > > >> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
> >> > > > optimized
> >> > > > > >> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for
> >> bringing
> >> > > > MPTCP
> >> > > > > >> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all
> >> Linux
> >> > > > users.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > To "attract" people, should we mention that the current
> >> implementation
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > already used by millions of users?
> >> > > > > > I like how your improve the last bit :-)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > """
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >     For more information about this project:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > I guess I can keep this, right?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from
> >> the max
> >> > > > > >>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I
> >> can no
> >> > > > longer
> >> > > > > >>> find this limit on their website :)
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
> >> > > > proposal.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Yes it is, thank you for your help!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Matthieu
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Mat
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> Thank you for your help!
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Have a good day/evening,
> >> > > > > >>> Matthieu
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Hi Matthieu -
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Hello,
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to
> >> 13th,
> >> > > > 2018.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our
> >> weekly
> >> > > > > >>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
> >> > > > feedback
> >> > > > > >>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP
> >> Upstream
> >> > > > > >>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is
> >> asked by
> >> > > > > >>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it
> >> is then
> >> > > > > >>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Also note that:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but
> >> other main
> >> > > > > >>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement
> >> about not
> >> > > > > >>>> attending or supporting the conference:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP
> >> Upstreaming" has
> >> > > > > >>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials
> >> and
> >> > > > > >>>>> workshops [3]
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly
> >> meetings
> >> > > > is to
> >> > > > > >>>>> give a tutorial:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as
> >> the
> >> > > > one of
> >> > > > > >>>>> Octavian
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain
> >> what is
> >> > > > MPTCP,
> >> > > > > >>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it
> >> upstream
> >> > > > and what
> >> > > > > >>>>> problems we are currently facing.
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to
> >> LPC in
> >> > > > > >>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this
> >> tutorial?
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure
> >> who has
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > >>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and
> >> more
> >> > > > about MPTCP
> >> > > > > >>>>> and here is what he suggests:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
> >> > > > > >>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a
> >> "closed
> >> > > > demo" to
> >> > > > > >>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something
> >> is not
> >> > > > easy in
> >> > > > > >>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90
> >> minute
> >> > > > > >>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
> >> > > > possible. The
> >> > > > > >>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
> >> Looking
> >> > > > at the
> >> > > > > >>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one
> >> tutorial
> >> > > > each, of
> >> > > > > >>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in
> >> length
> >> > > > to hold
> >> > > > > >>>> the audience's attention.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or
> >> explanations about
> >> > > > > >>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented
> >> if it
> >> > > > goes
> >> > > > > >>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP
> >> Options, we
> >> > > > need to
> >> > > > > >>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
> >> > > > connection
> >> > > > > >>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will
> >> be. I've
> >> > > > > >>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like
> >> there were
> >> > > > a lot
> >> > > > > >>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
> >> layers
> >> > > > (XDP, BPF,
> >> > > > > >>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion
> >> around
> >> > > > > >>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more
> >> audience
> >> > > > > >>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try
> >> to
> >> > > > strike a
> >> > > > > >>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those
> >> with more
> >> > > > > >>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals
> >> people
> >> > > > are still
> >> > > > > >>>> planning to attend)
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the
> >> upstreaming
> >> > > > > >>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current
> >> TCP
> >> > > > stack: what
> >> > > > > >>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
> >> > > > discussions we
> >> > > > > >>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function
> >> calls and
> >> > > > how to
> >> > > > > >>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't
> >> watched
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > >>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of
> >> questions
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > >>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be
> >> careful to
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > >>>> new content compared to the previous session.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could
> >> interact
> >> > > > > >>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path
> >> manager,
> >> > > > maybe the
> >> > > > > >>>>> scheduler, etc.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even
> >> propose
> >> > > > > >>>>> completely different ideas!
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic
> >> is on our
> >> > > > > >>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial
> >> there.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail
> >> /mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
> >> > > > > >>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
> >> > > > > >>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >> --
> >> > > > > >> Mat Martineau
> >> > > > > >> Intel OTC
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts
> >> | R&D
> >> > > > > > Engineer
> >> > > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> >> > > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> >> > > > > > www.tessares.net
> >> > > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> >> > > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> >> > > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts |
> >> R&D
> >> > > > > Engineer
> >> > > > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> >> > > > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> >> > > > > www.tessares.net
> >> > > > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> >> > > > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
> >> > > > Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > DISCLAIMER.
> >> > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> >> > > > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> >> whom they
> >> > > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> >> notify
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > system manager. This message contains confidential information
> >> and is
> >> > > > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> >> > > > addressee
> >> > > > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> >> > > > notify
> >> > > > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
> >> by
> >> > > > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not
> >> the
> >> > > > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> >> > > > distributing
> >> > > > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
> >> information is
> >> > > > > strictly prohibited.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> >> > > Engineer
> >> > > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> >> > > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> >> > > www.tessares.net
> >> > > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> >> > > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ot
> >> tignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > DISCLAIMER.
> >> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> >> > > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> >> they
> >> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> >> the
> >> > > system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> >> > > intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
> >> addressee
> >> > > you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> >> notify
> >> > > the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
> >> > > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> >> > > intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
> >> distributing
> >> > > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
> >> is
> >> > > strictly prohibited.
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > mptcp mailing list
> >> > mptcp(a)lists.01.org
> >> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/mptcp
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> > Engineer
> > matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> > Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> > www.tessares.net
> > 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> > <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
> Engineer
> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net
> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is 
> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 
> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify 
> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by 
> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the 
> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing 
> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
> strictly prohibited.

Re: [MPTCP] Call for ideas for a presentation about MPTCP Upstream project at NetDev 0x12 in July

[Mat Martineau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 24305 bytes --]


On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Christoph Paasch wrote:

> On 30/04/18 - 21:03:31, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/04/18 - 11:17:06, Christoph Paasch wrote:
>>>>> On 30/04/18 - 19:34:10, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch(a)apple.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/04/18 - 16:26:01, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Mat, Christoph, Peter, Ossama,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will wait for ~10am your time before sending it to let you some
>>>> times
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> comment this if you want to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Matthieu Baerts <
>>>>>>>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Mat,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your review and input!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Mat Martineau
>>>>>>> <mathew.j.martineau(a)linux.
>>>>>>>>> intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthieu -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Following yesterday's discussion about NetDev 0x12, here is a
>>>>>>>>>>> proposition of mail to send to NetDev committee. I already
>>>> put some
>>>>>>>>>>> comments. Note that I have followed the submission guidelines
>>>> from:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#proposa
>>>> ls
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please comment it before Monday morning. Sorry for the rush
>>>> but the
>>>>>>>>>>> deadline is the 1st of May :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Name(s) of the submitter(s): Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat
>>>>>>> Martineau
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Intel), Peter Krystad (Intel), Ossama Othman (Intel) and
>>>> myself,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote down the names of people who participated in the
>>>> discussion
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the ML and during the weekly meetings. I can add more people
>>>> if more
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> would like to join the preparation and presentation of this
>>>> tutorial.
>>>>>>>>>>> @Christoph, Mat, Peter, Ossama: can I write your names there?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ossama won't be able to attend. It looks like most sessions
>>>> have 1 or
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>> presenters, so I don't know if 4 is too many. I'm sure they'll
>>>> give
>>>>>>> us some
>>>>>>>>>> feedback if they want to limit the number of presenters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK thank you!
>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, I am sure they will say something if we are too
>>>> many.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Title of the submission: MPTCP: from the basic to an
>>>> upstreamable
>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We certainly need a better title, please comment!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future" ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was trying to find something that catch the attention but it
>>>> is maybe
>>>>>>>>> not needed for these kind of presentation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * Label (one of moonshot, nuts'n bolts, hands-on): hands-on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "hands-on" seems to be the correct one according to the
>>>> Submission
>>>>>>> Types.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html#types
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a little bit of "nuts & bolts" too, but I agree that
>>>> hands-on is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> better match.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Submission type (one of talk, presentation, workshop):
>>>> tutorial,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> instructor-led sessions (minimum 1 hour long and not to
>>>> exceed 1.5
>>>>>>>>>>> hours. The instructor will go over the technology either
>>>> through code
>>>>>>>>>>> review or execution and interact with the attendees.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess there is a typo here: presentation should be replaced
>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> tutorial in the guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's what we agreed yesterday but I can change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest
>>>> check):
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will have to double-check on the affiliation part wrt to Apple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I don't get a thumbs up, you can simply remove me from the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you want me to wait or can I send it today and ask to remove you
>>>> from
>>>>>> the list later if needed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you wait a little bit? I am trying to get a hold of the one who can
>>>> tell
>>>>> me "yes" or "no".
>>>>
>>>> Matthieu, you can leave the Apple-affiliation in for now.
>>>>
>>>> At worst, we can always remove me from the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the delay on this here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All good, I can wait more if you prefer!
>>>
>>> From my point-of-view, you can go ahead and submit the proposal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great!
>>> Let me recompile all bits!
>>>
>>
>> Here is what I am going to send:
>>
>> Names of the submitters: Christoph Paasch (Apple), Mat Martineau (Intel),
>>> Peter Krystad (Intel) and myself, Matthieu Baerts (Tessares)
>>> Title of the submission: Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream
>>> Future
>>> Label: hands-on
>>> Submission type: tutorial
>>> Estimate of length of time for presentation: 1h
>>> Affiliations of submitters (needed for conflict of interest check): Apple,
>>> Intel, Tessares
>>> Description of proposal:
>>>     A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the upstream
>>> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to this TCP
>>> extension (RFC 6824), show some use-cases already in production and have
>>> interactive discussions of the challenges in converging on an upstream
>>> MPTCP implementation.
>>>
>>>     We will use the current MPTCP implementation, already used by millions
>>> of devices, to demonstrate the utility of the protocol on today's Internet
>>> and to show how this implementation can currently be extended with APIs
>>> like Netlink. This not only has practical application for deploying
>>> Multipath TCP now, but also illustrates how the APIs and code will need to
>>> evolve in order to properly coexist with the optimized Linux TCP core we
>>> all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for bringing MPTCP to the upstream
>>> kernel so the technology is available to all Linux users.
>>>
>>>     For more information about this project:
>>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>>>
>>
>> I don't want to bother you for a new review. I hope and I guess it is fine
>> for everybody :)
>
> Awesome!

Yes, looks great! Thanks for all your work on this, Matthieu.


Mat


>
>
> Christoph
>
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>>
>>> Matthieu
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christoph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christoph
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christoph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Intel, Tessares
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Description of proposal:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     A project to add an implementation of the MultiPath TCP
>>>>>>> protocol to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux kernel is in progress by a small community. The goal of
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> tutorial is to discover what is this TCP extension (RFC
>>>> 6824), what
>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>>>>> different use-cases already in production by some companies
>>>> and what
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> the challenges to upstream MPTCP. We hope having interactive
>>>>>>> discussions
>>>>>>>>>>> and getting feedback from experienced developers will help us
>>>> in
>>>>>>> this task
>>>>>>>>>>> of easily bringing MPTCP to all Linux users, a technology
>>>> already
>>>>>>> used by
>>>>>>>>>>> millions of people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     In a bit more detail, we will start with a basic
>>>> introduction of
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPTCP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A few use-cases will be presented with a demo to explain how
>>>> useful
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> protocol is in today's Internet and how it can be extended
>>>> with
>>>>>>> API's like
>>>>>>>>>>> Netlink and BPF.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I recognize how Netlink is associated with a userspace path
>>>> manager,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> what's the BPF extensibility you're referring to?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was only to mention that it would be possible to extend
>>>> MPTCP with
>>>>>>> eBPF.
>>>>>>>>> Even if it is not already available in the current Open-Source
>>>>>>>>> implementation, there is already the possibility to get a
>>>> version with
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> programmable scheduler: https://progmp.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then we will have some explanations about how MPTCP is currently
>>>>>>>>>>> implemented. This current implementation is quite intrusive
>>>> and that
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> certainly not something we would like to have upstream. We
>>>> would
>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>>> express what we have in mind to change that, with some
>>>> samples and
>>>>>>> initiate
>>>>>>>>>>> discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My edit of the above:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> """
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A community project is underway to add Multipath TCP to the
>>>> upstream
>>>>>>>>>> Linux kernel. This tutorial will introduce the audience to
>>>> this TCP
>>>>>>>>>> extension (RFC 6824), show some use cases already in
>>>> production, and
>>>>>>>>>> discuss the challenges in converging on an upstream MPTCP
>>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should we insist on the "discussion" part? Like saying:
>>>> "discuss with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> audience"? "have interactive discussions"?
>>>>>>>>> It is maybe not needed but it was mainly to express the
>>>> interactivity,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> is a tutorial, not just a "simple" presentation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We will use the current MPTCP implementation to demonstrate the
>>>>>>> utility of
>>>>>>>>>> the protocol on today's internet, and to show how this
>>>> implementation
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> currently be extended with netlink and BPF. This not only has
>>>>>>> practical
>>>>>>>>>> application for deploying MPTCP now, but also illustrates how
>>>> the
>>>>>>> APIs and
>>>>>>>>>> code will need to evolve in order to properly coexist with the
>>>>>>> optimized
>>>>>>>>>> Linux TCP core we all rely on. We will discuss our ideas for
>>>> bringing
>>>>>>> MPTCP
>>>>>>>>>> to the upstream kernel so the technology is available to all
>>>> Linux
>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To "attract" people, should we mention that the current
>>>> implementation
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> already used by millions of users?
>>>>>>>>> I like how your improve the last bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> """
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to edit/merge/expand/discard as needed :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your edit, it is indeed cleaner!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     For more information about this project:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/wiki
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess I can keep this, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please feel free to comment this as well. We are still far from
>>>> the max
>>>>>>>>>>> 350 words limit we found last time. But on the other hand, I
>>>> can no
>>>>>>> longer
>>>>>>>>>>> find this limit on their website :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hope the above is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this
>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is, thank you for your help!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your help!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have a good day/evening,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2018 21:58, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthieu -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NetDev 0x12 is coming to Montréal this summer: July 11th to
>>>> 13th,
>>>>>>> 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already talked about this event on this ML and at our
>>>> weekly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meetings but here is a summary of the discussions we had:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - we would like to have a presentation there mainly to get
>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and advice from other kernel developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - a presentation would clearly indicate that this MPTCP
>>>> Upstream
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project exists and we could get help from more developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - we would like to indicate that having MPTCP upstream is
>>>> asked by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different companies, some are even ready to contribute ; it
>>>> is then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> important to have MPTCP upstream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - David Miller will not be present in Montréal [1] but
>>>> other main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors should be there (we don't have a list)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Side note, in the past day David reiterated his statement
>>>> about not
>>>>>>>>>>>> attending or supporting the conference:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=152466827203301&w=2
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  - A presentation by Octavian Purdila about "MPTCP
>>>> Upstreaming" has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already been given in 2015 (NetDev 0.1) [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - 3 types of presentation are available: talks, tutorials
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> workshops [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - Call for Presentation Proposals closes on May 1st, 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current idea we briefly discussed during our weekly
>>>> meetings
>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give a tutorial:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - It is not useful to give almost the same presentation as
>>>> the
>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Octavian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - It will allow us more flexibility somehow to explain
>>>> what is
>>>>>>> MPTCP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the different use-cases, why it is important to have it
>>>> upstream
>>>>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems we are currently facing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - David Miller and many other kernel developers will go to
>>>> LPC in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> November: a good place to give a talk this time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any ideas on what we could show in this
>>>> tutorial?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recently discussed with my colleague Olivier Bonaventure
>>>> who has
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of experiences in giving different introductions and
>>>> more
>>>>>>> about MPTCP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and here is what he suggests:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - A first part about a basic introduction of MPTCP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - Indicate different use-cases -- if possible with a
>>>> "closed
>>>>>>> demo" to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be sure it is working -- asking people to setup something
>>>> is not
>>>>>>> easy in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1h, max 1h30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  From the description at [3], either "instructor-led" 60-90
>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>>> tutorials or "student-participation" 2-3 hour sessions are
>>>>>>> possible. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> closed demo maps well to their "instructor-led" category.
>>>> Looking
>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> schedule, the past two Netdev Conferences have had one
>>>> tutorial
>>>>>>> each, of
>>>>>>>>>>>> 60-70 minutes. I think it helps to be closer to an hour in
>>>> length
>>>>>>> to hold
>>>>>>>>>>>> the audience's attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  - Then trying to have interactive discussions or
>>>> explanations about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how MPTCP is currently implemented or should be implemented
>>>> if it
>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> upstream, e.g.: for MPTCP, we need to have extra TCP
>>>> Options, we
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support middleboxes, we need to link subflows of the same
>>>>>>> connection
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together, we need a scheduler, a PM, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's difficult to predict how interactive an audience will
>>>> be. I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> only attended one Netdev Conference, and it seemed like
>>>> there were
>>>>>>> a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>> more people with expertise and interest in drivers, lower
>>>> layers
>>>>>>> (XDP, BPF,
>>>>>>>>>>>> TC, netfilter), and network topology/simulation. Discussion
>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>>> middlebox support and the userspace API might have more
>>>> audience
>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction. If we want to drive a discussion, we could try
>>>> to
>>>>>>> strike a
>>>>>>>>>>>> balance between topics for the broader audience and those
>>>> with more
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of TCP internals. (Hopefully some TCP internals
>>>> people
>>>>>>> are still
>>>>>>>>>>>> planning to attend)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  - Of course, we should focus our discussions on the
>>>> upstreaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect, e.g. reducing the footprint of MPTCP in the current
>>>> TCP
>>>>>>> stack: what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are we allow to do, what not. It is linked to many previous
>>>>>>> discussions we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had on this ML, e.g. why we need more indirect function
>>>> calls and
>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the impact, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The previous talk ([2]) had a section like this. I haven't
>>>> watched
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> recently, I should look at it again to see what kind of
>>>> questions
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> audience was asking. As you mentioned above we should be
>>>> careful to
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> new content compared to the previous session.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  - If we have time, we could discuss about how users could
>>>> interact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with MPTCP: enable it per connection, control the path
>>>> manager,
>>>>>>> maybe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduler, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think about this? Feel free to comment and even
>>>> propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different ideas!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for outlining these ideas. I see that this topic
>>>> is on our
>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting agenda so it will be good to discuss the tutorial
>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail
>>>> /mptcp/2018-March/000379.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftz2cU5SZs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/submit-proposal.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Mat Martineau
>>>>>>>>>> Intel OTC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts
>>>> | R&D
>>>>>>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>>>>>>>>> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>>>>>>>>> www.tessares.net
>>>>>>>>> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
>>>>>>> Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts |
>>>> R&D
>>>>>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>>>>>>>> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>>>>>>>> www.tessares.net
>>>>>>>> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+
>>>>>>> Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER.
>>>>>>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
>>>>>>>> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
>>>> whom they
>>>>>>>> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
>>>> notify
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> system manager. This message contains confidential information
>>>> and is
>>>>>>>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
>>>>>>> addressee
>>>>>>>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
>>>>>>> notify
>>>>>>>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail
>>>> by
>>>>>>>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
>>>>>>> distributing
>>>>>>>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
>>>> information is
>>>>>>>> strictly prohibited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
>>>>>> Engineer
>>>>>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>>>>>> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>>>>>> www.tessares.net
>>>>>> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ot
>>>> tignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DISCLAIMER.
>>>>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
>>>>>> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>>>> they
>>>>>> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>>>> the
>>>>>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>>>>>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
>>>> addressee
>>>>>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
>>>> notify
>>>>>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>>>>>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>>>>>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
>>>> distributing
>>>>>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
>>>> is
>>>>>> strictly prohibited.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mptcp mailing list
>>>>> mptcp(a)lists.01.org
>>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/mptcp
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
>>> Engineer
>>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>>> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>>> www.tessares.net
>>> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: Tessares SA] <http://www.tessares.net> Matthieu Baerts | R&D
>> Engineer
>> matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
>> Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
>> www.tessares.net
>> 1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>> <https://www.google.com/maps?q=1+Avenue+Jean+Monnet,+1348+Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve,+Belgium>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> DISCLAIMER.
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
>> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>> strictly prohibited.
>

--
Mat Martineau
Intel OTC