Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-32: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I have a few high-level aspects in this document that I would like to discuss. <discuss-1> The abstract of this document says: This document explores the complexities involved in managing large scale Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) overlay networks, along with various SD-WAN scenarios. Its objective is to illustrate how a BGP-based control plane can effectively manage these overlay networks by distributing edge service reachability information, WAN port attributes, and underlay path details, thereby minimizing manual provisioning. To my knowledge there are SD-WAN solutions from several vendors that are widely deployed today. Some of them use IETF protocols for specific functionalities while others use proprietary mechanisms (here I am not referring to IPSec or TLS but routing protocols). This text (and a few similar in the body of the document) gives the impression of comparison between a BGP-based solution that is not fully specified (not even the framework is specified) in this document against solutions deployed out there. As easy way to address this would be to rephrase such text to not make claims or comparisons. Perhaps just plainly state how use of BGP can potentially replace other proprietary mechanisms used in SD-WAN solution? E.g., the first sentence is problematic since it can be read as existing solutions have complexities that are solved by BGP without any supporting evidence or evaluation of those other solutions. <discuss-2> Introduction section says: This document captures the SD-WAN scenarios, control-plane behaviors, and forwarding considerations that motivate current and future IETF work on SD-WAN. Publishing this material as an RFC provides a stable, citable foundation for related protocol specifications and ensures a shared understanding of the problem space across the industry. As mentioned in the previous point, there are multiple SD-WAN solutions that have been developed by various vendors using IETF technologies like BGP (but with proprietary extensions) or entirely proprietary solutions. AFAIK, none of these solutions support interoperability between SD-WAN gateways and controllers from different vendors. Please correct me if I am wrong. So, I wonder where and how the standardization of SD-WAN at the IETF is happening to enable such interoperability that is after all the purpose of the IETF. The BGP extensions are but a small portion of what an SD-WAN solution entails. Do the claims made in that text hold? Why not just say "This document captures the SD-WAN scenarios, control-plane behaviors, and forwarding considerations using BGP." or something like that? <discuss-3> In continuation of the previous point. There is no SD-WAN WG that is chartered today to study and undertake the work necessary for a standards based open and interoperable SD-WAN solution. Without that in place, I do not understand the value or benefit of publication of this document via the IETF track. It could as well be via ISE? <discuss-4> Section 3.1.5 says An SD-WAN edge must use a secure channel, such as TLS following BCP195[RFC9325] or Ipsec [RFC4301], to its designated RR for exchanging BGP UPDATE messages. I assume that IPsec tunnels need to be setup between the edge and the controller and this tunnel has IP addresses on both ends that are used to setup a BGP Session over it - i.e., in tunnel mode per RFC4301 with both AH and ESP. If so, please clarify. I am unable to find a similar IETF specification for setting BGP over TLS tunnels. I don't think BCP195 covers these aspects. Can you please clarify this use of TLS with an appropriate reference? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support the DISCUSS position of Med. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
