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/ . The intent is to describe the issues and then describe the methods to scale the IPSec Tunnels to Cloud DCs via Public Internet. 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"? 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? 1. Network Traffic traceability, logging and diagnostics. [Linda] Do you mean adding them as new requirements? Best, Aseem
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
