RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Med,

Thank you for the comments to the revised document.
Please see below for the proposed resolutions.

Linda

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4:02 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; RTGWG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Hi Linda, all,

Thank you for the changes. Below some comments on the candidate version, fwiw:

  *   I think there are "too" much product-specific details. This might be a personal taste but I don't think it is a good idea to have those details in an RFC.
[Linda] You are referring to Section 4.1 (Sites to Cloud DC), correct? The intent is to show there are multiple types of Cloud GWs (Internet GW, Virtual GW for terminating IPsec tunnels, and Direct Connect GW for private circuits). The earlier version of the draft only had general term, but  comments during the Early DIR review suggested adding some examples. How about changing to the following?
"Most Cloud operators offer multiple types of network gateways (GWs)through which an enterprise can reach their workloads hosted in the Cloud DCs:

-   Internet GW for services hosted in the Cloud DCs to be accessed by external requests via Internet routable addresses. E.g., AWS Internet GW [AWS-Cloud-WAN].

-   IPsec tunnels terminating GW for establishing IPsec SAs [RFC6071] with an enterprise's own gateway, so that the communications between those gateways can be secured from the underlay (which might be the public Internet). E.g., AWS Virtual gateway (vGW).

-   Direct connect GW for enterprises to connect with Cloud services via private leased lines provided by Network Service Providers. E.g., AWS Direct Connect."


  *   The comment in Section 3.6 was not actually about suggesting to add a reference to 8512. I suggest to delete that NEW reference. My main comment was that given that many DCs out there are IPv6-only and DC-SIIT mechanism (RFC7755) is used, check if you can adjust your statement about "usually" assigning private IP addressed.
[Linda] My friends working in AWS and Azure all have told me that the adoption of IPv6 for internal private addresses in cloud data centers was not as widespread as the use of IPv4. They are not using RFC7755 to do the IP address translation. Therefore, I don't think we should add this.



  *   In that same section, you changed IP to IPv4/IPv6. I suggest you delete the IPv6 part of that new text and keep the text specific to IPv4. Then, add any IPv6-specific matters in a separate sentence. BTW, absent IPv6-specific discussion in the core text, it is not clear why you included a mention about IPv4/IPv6 when introducing VPCs.
[Linda]  IPv6 specific discussion is not the intent of this section. The section is about NAT for private address to external.


  *   I still think the classification of your normative references is not OK (e.g., RFC2735 is informative). Please check https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/

[Linda] Thanks. I will change them per the link you gave.


  *   There are some minor nits that weren't echoed from the review (e.g., "of of" in Section 2).
[Linda] Will go over again to change the nits.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Med

De : Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : mardi 12 décembre 2023 02:06
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; RTGWG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Med,

Thank you very much for the comprehensive review, the detailed comments and suggestions.
My resolutions to your comments and suggestion are marked on your document attached. Also attached are the changes to the draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-31 (Change Bar Highlighted).

Please let us know if the resolutions are okay.

Linda

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 12:43 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; RTGWG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Hi Linda,

The point is that having means to programmatically sync the configuration between two endpoints will soften many of the issues you listed in that excerpt. This is actually not specific to BGP session, but starts even with basic setup of the underlying bearer/attachment circuit.

Cheers,
Med

De : Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : vendredi 8 décembre 2023 21:02
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; RTGWG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Med,

Some questions to your suggestion:
You suggested referencing the draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-03<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-03#name-connecting-a-virtualized-en> for the following issues.
Section 3.1 Increased BGP Peering Errors and Mitigation Methods

Cloud DCs support more BGP peering than conventional ISPs, which can contribute to increased BGP peering errors such as capability mismatch, unwanted route leaks, missing Keepalives, and errors causing BGP ceases. Capability mismatch can cause BGP sessions not to be adequately established. Those issues are more acute to Cloud DCs than they have traditionally been, even though they may apply to conventional ISPs, just to a lesser degree.

Are you saying that Cloud customers using YANG to configure the BGP sessions are less prone to the  BGP peering errors identified above?

Thanks, Linda


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 4:54 AM
To: RTGWG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Hi all,

FWIW, please find below my review to this document:


  *   pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-30-rev%20Med.pdf
  *   doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/edit/master/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-30-rev%20Med.doc

Feel free to grab whatever useful in the review.

I support advancing this spec assuming key points of the review are addressed.

Cheers,
Med

From: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:44 PM
To: RTGWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement

Dear RTGWG,

The authors have requested the RTGWG to last call the draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement draft.

The authors have addressed all the comments received from the early reviews and shepherd (thanks Joel!).
Please indicate support or no-support by December 20 2023.

IPR:
If you are listed as a document author or contributor and haven't responded to the IPR call, please respond to this
email of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list.
The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.

Thanks,
Yingzhen and Jeff

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.