IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: WG Adoption Call - draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan (04/10/24 - 04/26/24)

"Shihang(Vincent)" <shihang9@huawei.com> Fri, 12 April 2024 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <shihang9@huawei.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 D3A22C14F60D; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 23:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.192
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.192 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YuFkesEwzEog; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 23:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E2DC14F619; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 23:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VG6jm1nXdz67L9G; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:54:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.224]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E241400D4; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:55:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemf100010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.224) by lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:55:46 +0100
Received: from kwepemf100010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.224) by kwepemf100010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.4; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:55:45 +0800
Received: from kwepemf100010.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.224]) by kwepemf100010.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.224]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.004; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:55:45 +0800
From: "Shihang(Vincent)" <shihang9@huawei.com>
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "nvo3-chairs@ietf.org" <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG Adoption Call - draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan (04/10/24 - 04/26/24)
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call - draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan (04/10/24 - 04/26/24)
Thread-Index: AQHai3GCQtGte9hcTEy+7khgfaXE0rFkNG6g
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:55:44 +0000
Message-ID: <85e83538fcba400eb8ed256c4eaeebd9@huawei.com>
References: <CABY-gOPp3xJsQfbVvWvANsKZSQbPwKimZyx94w2wETSEQHGz7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABY-gOPp3xJsQfbVvWvANsKZSQbPwKimZyx94w2wETSEQHGz7g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.41.128]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_85e83538fcba400eb8ed256c4eaeebd9huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/QGczIxs-sGK0apTawhl8pfRT5aE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:55:51 -0000

Hi all,
I support the WG adoption of the draft.

It evolves the SDWAN technology by leveraging the cloud as one segment. Since the IPSec tunnel does not terminate at the cloud GW, the processing is efficient.

Thanks,
Hang
From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:02 AM
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>; nvo3-chairs@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption Call - draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan (04/10/24 - 04/26/24)

Hi,

This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-07 - Multi-segment SD-WAN via Cloud DCs (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan/>

After the draft was presented at IETF 119, the chairs did a poll of the draft, and here are the questions and results:

  *   "Do you think the multi-segment SD-WAN as described in the draft is a use case that the IETF should work on?"
yes: 20 no: 9 no_opinion: 33 total: 84

  *   "Do you support adoption of this work in RTGWG?"
yes: 9 no: 9 no_opinion: 25 total: 92

There is currently one IPR disclosure of this draft: IPR disclosures (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-dmk-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan>
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft.

The draft proposes a solution which extends GENEVE, so also copying NVO3 WG. If you don't think the draft should be adopted in RTGWG, please voice your opinion.

Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by Apr 26th, 2024.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email