Hi Linda, Please see my replies inline.
-thanks! From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 4:01 PM To: Aseem Choudhary <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-27 Aseem, Thank you very much for your comments. Inserted below are the resolution to your comments and questions to clarify your suggestions: Thank you! Linda From: Aseem Choudhary <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:08 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-27 Hello Authors, Thanks for the writing the document! After going through it, I have some questions/comments: 1. Section 5: Heading looks something miss to me since main heading mentions “method to scale ..” while sub-sections mention “issues.. “, “poor performance ..”. Maybe it can be adjusted or if it is mainly issues/mitigation, it can be combined with Section 3? [Linda] changes has been made in the latest revision: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/29/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdatatracker.ietf.org%2fdoc%2fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement%2f29%2f&c=E,1,5vaU0-IF-h7yxIyQjlWwEquOEAGS5pV9YeRdWOrDPDLzu6ON5DykZ-Y2IOk6QX3wmYz-_7Uv4VlyRJnvWphhY7wVHqsx1mZdGW8zOEtgnI4,&typo=1> . The intent is to describe the issues and then describe the methods to scale the IPSec Tunnels to Cloud DCs via Public Internet. [Aseem] Thanks for the changes. It looks good now. 1. Section 6: Can it be enhanced to add: 1. Scalability of transit/spoke gateways itself as workloads are increased/migrated. [Linda] Can you elaborate what does it mean of the above sentence? Do you want to add some scenario to describe “Transit/Spoke GW as Workloads”? [Aseem] say you have per region (for each CSP) transit gateways (for redundancy or traffic distribution). These transit gateways can peer with each other. 1. Traffic engineering to distribute loads across regions/AZs based on performance/availability of workloads etc. as well as for connecting to other CSPs. [Linda] Do you mean enabling each zone to advertise its capacity so that traffic can be better balanced among regions/AZs? Does the Section 3.4 of the revision -29 address your comment? [Aseem] yes, combination of application and network latency, bandwidth etc. I am fine with “the CATS working group” reference even though I believe this more generic requirement than just 5G. 1. Network Traffic traceability, logging and diagnostics. [Linda] Do you mean adding them as new requirements? [Aseem] I see it is already added in section 6 which looks good to me. Best, Aseem
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
