Hi Linda, Thanks for organizing the call. The changes look good.
Best, Aseem From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:16 PM To: Aseem Choudhary <achoudh...@aviatrix.com>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.auth...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.auth...@ietf.org> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org <rtgwg@ietf.org> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-27 Aseem, Thank you very much for the call explaining your additional requirements to be added to Section 6 of the document. Based on today’s discussion, one more approach is added to the list of approaches to interconnect workloads in multiple Cloud DCs (Section 4.2 Inter-Cloud interconnection) d) Utilize a Cloud Aggregator or Cloud Services Broker (CSB) who acts as an intermediator among cloud service providers and network service providers to offer a combined total package for enterprises. The Cloud Aggregator can provide the network connections among one enterprise’s services instantiated in multiple Clouds. One more requirement is added to Section 6: * Should support transit/spoke gateways interconnection scalability and consistent policy enforcement as workloads are increased/migrated. This requirement is mainly for the Cloud Aggregators or Cloud Service Brokers who provide managed services to enterprises over multiple Cloud service providers. Please let us know if those changes addressed your concerns. Thank you! Linda From: Linda Dunbar Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:01 PM To: Aseem Choudhary <achoudh...@aviatrix.com>; draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.auth...@ietf.org Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org 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 <achoudh...@aviatrix.com<mailto:achoudh...@aviatrix.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:08 PM To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.auth...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.auth...@ietf.org> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org> 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,Y3GsELlIlIRWTAGJQr2akY4RO_FEwr27D6N_SGmBbBOzyyPeZvkdS-wv1DM3S0GZmQPtK2AKoHRPamm6xZ82ezzHUGpnB6JOvVX_O8z2lyLbVVO8Ts5dDaUYIg,,&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. 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 rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
