Thank you Kausik for the clarifications on the draft. Gyan
On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 6:15 PM Kausik Majumdar <[email protected]> wrote: > This Draft has nothing to do with SRv6. Please feel free to use SRv6 > encap/decap in the Provider network. Within the single CSP Domain how the > traffic is steered that won’t be controlled by the external Domains and not > going to be exposed. Yes, DSCP based QoS services can be used in future. > Though, that is not the purpose of this Draft. The main purpose of this > Draft not to terminate the IPSec Tunnels in the Cloud Transit GWs. > > > > Thanks, > > Kausik > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2023 12:32 PM > *To:* Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Aseem Choudhary <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-00 > > > > > > Hi Linda > > > > I reviewed the draft and had some questions and ideas for expansion of the > draft to expand on use free using SRv6 uSID. We can discuss in separate > email. > > > > The connection from CPE to any cloud GW being on Prem part of enterprise > or off Prem to CSP would always be an eBGP peering to the gateway for both > single segment and multi segment. > > > > Section 5.1 and 5.2 single and multi segment transit GW as iBGP. Would > that not always be eBGP to the GW for both on Prem or off Prem GW. > > > > GENEVE is a DC specific overlay over IP underlay L2 centric > extensibility. Since we are providing IP over SD WAN transitivity it seems > having the complexity of the NVO GENEVE encapsulation seems quite a lot of > overhead with outer MAC / IP / UDP / GENEVE / inner Ethernet / Payload. > > > > I believe Next SID SRv6 uSID as it uses native IP DA uSID carrier for > steering up to 5 GW hops and SRv6 as it uses IPv6 data plane and IPv6 has > native IPSEC with extension header you can do secure SRv6 uSID steering > multi hop multi segment through CSP waypoints for end to end optimized SD > WAN steering capabilities and all done natively with uSID which utilizes > simplified IP DA address as uSID carrier for 6 hops of steering using uN > shift and forward function within the DA IP uSID carrier as opposed to > Replace SID which copies from SRH to DA requiring SRH to be present on the > CSP GW multi hop endpoints. > > > > Another idea is maybe to use RFC 9012 BGP tunnel encapsulation attribute > leverage to build the single and multi hop IP tunnels between the CSP > gateways. > > > > Thanks > > > > Gyan > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:53 AM Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Aseem, > > > > Thanks for reviewing the draft. Answers to your questions are inserted > below: > > > > Linda > > > > *From:* Aseem Choudhary <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2023 1:13 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-00 > > > > Fixed a typo. > > > > *From: *Aseem Choudhary <[email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:33 PM > *To: *[email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-00 > > > > Hello Authors, > > > > Thanks for the document, Great work! > > > > Having gone through the document, I have some questions/clarifications: > > > > 1. Section 3.3, it is mentioned SRv6/mpls-te not the best way. If > there are multiple Cloud GW’s and traffic need to be steered through for > serviceability and performance, why SRv6 *not* an option? > > [Linda] The draft proposes to use GENEVE header simply because wide > adoption of GENEVE by cloud operators. > > In addition, when the traffic from on-prem CPEs to Cloud GWs via the > public Internet, TE and SRv6 is not supported by the Internet. Internet can > only forward traffic based on the packets’ destination addresses. > > > > 1. Section 4.5: Can there be multiple Egress GW Sub-TLV (or Next GW > Sub-TLV) to steer traffic. > > > > [Linda] The Egress GW Sub-TLV carries the information of the SD-WAN end > point which is used by the egress GW to forward the traffic to. > > > > 1. Section 4.6/4.7: What is the best way to encode AZ/Regions? Is it > possible to include/exclude specific Transit GW’s? > > [Linda] Probably will be “name” for the AZ/Regions, as most cloud > operators do today, as the actual GW address of different AZ/Regions might > be hidden from the end users. > > > > I may have further comments. > > > > -thanks, > > Aseem > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email **[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
