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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:33 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[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
