I have reviewed this draft. Overall, it is clear and provides a useful
description. I support advancing this document.
I do have some minor comments which I would appreciate being considered.
Section 4.3 on the SD-WAN Tunnel Originator Sub-TLV indicates that this
may be used to influence policy routing or security policy. This seems
to introduce its own threat vector not considered by the Threat analysis
in section 9.1. It may be that the intention is to use this to allow
the custoemr to specify what treatment the want, albeit indirectly? Or
it may be that the assumption is that if the customer lies in this
field, they will only hurt themselves? Or that such lies will be
detected and penalized by other systems? Whatever the assumption is, it
should be spelled out.
I see a disconnect between sections 7.1 and 7.2. I suspect that the
disconnect is due to a descriptive gap, not a technical flaw. Section
7.1 talks about using iBGP to coordinate information among the various
CPE. Section 7.2 then talks about using eBGP to coordinate between the
CPE and the Cloud gateway. That seems to mean that the iBGP sessions
are running over scope subject to eBGP. I am guessing that the
assumption is that iBGP is expected to be tunneled over the paths
controlled by eBGP. But the text doesn't say that.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/23/2026 6:32 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Hi, This starts the Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan - Multi-segment SD-WAN via Cloud
DCshttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan/Please
send your support or objection before March 10, 2026. If you have any
comments on this draft, whether positive or negative, please send them
to the list.
Thanks,
Yingzhen& Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
