Hi, Chongfeng:
The standard BGP protocol can certainly unlock the customer to one specific SD-WAN service provider. But given the scenario in this document depends on the SD-WAN controller, it is unrealistic that the different sites of one customer connect to different SD-WAN controllers. Normally, these sites of the customer will connect one SD-WAN controller, then, the advantage of BGP protocol, when compared with the prosperity protocol, is not very convinced. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: Chongfeng Xie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 1:35 PM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[email protected]>; bess <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [bess] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage Hi Aijun, For point 4 you raised, I think current proprietary protocol-based implementations have limited deployment scale, in addition, for users are bound to a specific service provider, it constrains users' choices. Therefore, It is necessary to propose new alternative solutions. Best regards Chongfeng From: <mailto:[email protected]> Aijun Wang Date: 2025-09-08 12:09 To: <mailto:[email protected]> 'Matthew Bocci \(Nokia\)'; <mailto:[email protected]> 'BESS' CC: <mailto:[email protected]> draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage Subject: [bess] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage Hi, All: I have reviewed roughly this document, and have the following comments before its publication: 1) The document focus on the “BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks”, then, can we remove the section 6 of “SD-WAN Forwarding Model” which focuses mainly on the forwarding plane, not BGP usage? 2) Should the document introduce first the scenario, and requirements, and then the BGP controlled SD-WAN? That is to say, put the current section 3.1 after the section 3.2/3.3/3.4? 3) Should the authors review again the current “requirements” with the section 5, and evaluate again whether the section 5 meets the current “requirements”? for example, can the “Zero Touch Provisioning” is accomplished via the BGP protocol? If not, I suggest to remove such requirements. 4) As I known, current SD-WAN deployment is mainly implemented via the vendor’s proprietary protocol, because the complex policy requirements. Can the authors explain more the benefits that depends on BGP, instead of the proprietary protocol to accomplish the similar aim? And, if we need still the controller, why don’t use the proprietary protocol, instead of extending the BGP protocol? Answering the above questions, and make the above adjustment, can convince the reader better and make the document’s motivation more clearly. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Bocci (Nokia) Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 7:05 PM To: BESS <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage This email begins a working group last call for <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/> draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-26 - BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS WG list, including whether (or not) you support publishing this draft as an informational RFC. A bit of background: the draft was previously sent to the IESG but was returned to the working group after extensive review/discussion and due to some concerns that it was not in charter at the time. The BESS WG charter has recently been clarified. This WG last call ends on Wednesday 10th September. Matthew
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
