IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: quick question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-00

Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@futurewei.com> Mon, 03 June 2019 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ldunbar@futurewei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC561203C7 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q71KJPA1eX4R for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr820131.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.82.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A526F120387 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=H1gB9f7VBJJxmB6T7+SmM2AevftQO+fVaKpRO6L8CgA=; b=NNPJl2VGmh6LHhhfZOSna0+o6iOD8mNltKRiCV0BwMu9C6rohSUUZPtxGqYKk6Hr7m0IlyCGvvFr/PuX5OkVmM35ue1K7g8a6eJHPCEpXxRxdOsDduYgSosRHC9h4VnntiStMvjEwmaMbmReFnhLp0GDNmy8II76vMg2aXr31Xw=
Received: from MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (10.255.238.139) by MN2PR13MB3613.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (10.255.238.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1965.4; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:52:08 +0000
Received: from MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b5e8:95cb:5d8e:9397]) by MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b5e8:95cb:5d8e:9397%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1965.011; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:52:08 +0000
From: Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@futurewei.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, JACQUENET Christian IMT/OLN <Christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, "mehmet.toy@verizon.com" <mehmet.toy@verizon.com>
CC: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: quick question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-00
Thread-Topic: quick question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-00
Thread-Index: AQHVGYYbo5wl+1GZqUaNFjWuWMlRBqaKDsJw
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:52:08 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR13MB3582439AE8BEB3943A24D7E8A9140@MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAG4d1rfSOr=EpTm5sDQ_FHK8r-ZNtvZXQdAtshp4tT324RgpBA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfSOr=EpTm5sDQ_FHK8r-ZNtvZXQdAtshp4tT324RgpBA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ldunbar@futurewei.com;
x-originating-ip: [47.187.216.132]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 23a791cd-dc3b-46ce-a3ee-08d6e83b6f0c
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR13MB3613;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR13MB3613:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR13MB361371ACE9EE5D8A3587C553A9140@MN2PR13MB3613.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0057EE387C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(376002)(39830400003)(396003)(136003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(229853002)(54896002)(3846002)(55016002)(6306002)(6436002)(236005)(9686003)(790700001)(6116002)(99286004)(7696005)(68736007)(256004)(14444005)(33656002)(2501003)(6506007)(53546011)(11346002)(74316002)(476003)(486006)(76176011)(102836004)(26005)(186003)(25786009)(446003)(6246003)(2906002)(66446008)(64756008)(66476007)(4326008)(66556008)(110136005)(66946007)(76116006)(53936002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(7736002)(5660300002)(73956011)(14454004)(966005)(52536014)(316002)(66066001)(8676002)(86362001)(606006)(478600001)(81156014)(8936002)(81166006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR13MB3613; H:MN2PR13MB3582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: futurewei.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: rfFxyDrbjssQ9yREaM/vp9kSKD3jUSTN8boXBqS0QqX8CrEaKyBFaR/Xkswjvr72wZXjZuU5oKrx7ZpRaMQZqOH+m8cn2pOiBWZCmKKZgWwJC2I5+xuwnIJNLqB8DluytQY3r+YBIdug6+i6WpCkeuNOrC8T4SI8yMgIfI9UUp/zxr+1sjoXR9vYrPVcvZdn12RlkzwGVu6+18CGaGUq1xqOBZW0MzABtaMzXH7oGgQXT5Sq3CphIHjD1g945FlMULMqtwbdUIc9fMfeu35SnuWm69A8KavkDuUPDNsLVimNj19+6XVBx4WB4FJBuCF+2h+cCBPM30l+DjD1+7/uGHZWF5XYrllLidVPfhLokUqo9rwUSAH7sAcWzQv6Dbp7iYvzWWKPfvcdI7nHW2hZ9HNtWqbtLaKeG0pBhsjmurI=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR13MB3582439AE8BEB3943A24D7E8A9140MN2PR13MB3582namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 23a791cd-dc3b-46ce-a3ee-08d6e83b6f0c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Jun 2019 15:52:08.2188 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ldunbar@futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR13MB3613
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/s8xntfrL1eBwKdH1wh8nhLuuHTw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:59:25 -0000

Alia,

Thank you very much for reviewing the draft. Answers to your questions are inserted below:


From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>; Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@huawei.com>; JACQUENET Christian IMT/OLN <Christian.jacquenet@orange.com>; mehmet.toy@verizon.com
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: quick question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-00

Hi Linda, Andy, Christian, and Mehmet,

I finally took a quick read through both the problem-statement and gap-analysis drafts
for net2cloud.  The problem-statement one is very clear and well-written.
[Linda] Thank you.
I do have a quick question about this bullet point.

" - Many cloud DCs use an overlay to connect their gateways to the
        workloads located inside the DC. There has not been any
        standard to address the interworking between the Cloud Overlay
        and the enterprise' existing underlay networks."

Can you clarify what need you see for the interworking?  Currently, BGP is just
used for exchanging routes and liveness.  I didn't see anything specifically called out.
[Linda] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-port-safi-01 identifies one extension needed. As the overlay network have WAN ports facing the 3rd party networks (ISPs), its WAN ports properties need to be propagated to its authorized peers via the secure channel between the overlay edge nodes and the Controller, instead of directly among each other.

The drafts also touch only briefly on the direct interconnect.  Is that because you see the connectivity provided by the MPLS VPN provider to be a better fit into the SD-WAN use-case?
[Linda] For many of our SD-WAN deployment, the overlay edge nodes (most likely virtual ones) in Cloud DC are connected to On-Prem data centers via multiple connections: Direct Connect & Overlay. It is necessary for BGP to manage both.

Regards,
Alia

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email