We updated the gap analysis on using Tunnel-Encap for SD-WAN tunnel after some confusions in interpreting the Tunnel-Encap draft are cleared by the IDR's a long thread of email discussion. Many thanks to the IDR Chair and the participants for the discussion.
Here is the highlight of the gaps. We would appreciate greatly to hear comments or objections for our gap analysis. ------------------------------------------- - [Tunnel-Encap] doesn't have the functionality that would help the C-PE to register its WAN Port properties. - A SD-WAN tunnel, e.g. IPsec-based, requires a negotiation between the tunnel's end points for supported encryption algorithms and tunnel types before it can be properly established, whereas [Tunnel-Encap] only allow the announcement of one endpoint's supported encapsulation capabilities for specific attached routes and no negotiation between tunnel end points is needed. The establishment of a SD-WAN tunnel can fail, e.g., in case the two endpoints support different encryption algorithms. That is why a SD-WAN tunnel needs to be established and maintained independently from advertising client routes attached to the edge node. - [Tunnel-Encap] requires all tunnels updates are associated with routes. There can be many client routes associated with the SD-WAN IPsec tunnel between two C-PEs' WAN ports; the corresponding destination prefixes (as announced by the aforementioned routes) may also be reached through the VPN underlay without any encryption. A more realistic approach to separate SD-WAN tunnel management from client routes association with the SD-WAN tunnels. - When SD-WAN tunnel and clients routes are separate, the SD-WAN Tunnel establishment may not have routes associated. There is a suggestion on using a "Fake Route" for a SD-WAN node to use [Tunnel-Encap] to advertise its SD-WAN tunnel end-points properties. However, using "Fake Route" can raise some design complexity for large SD-WAN networks with many tunnels. For example, for a SD-WAN network with hundreds of nodes, with each node having many ports & many endpoints to establish SD-WAN tunnels with their corresponding peers, the node would need as many "fake addresses". For large SD-WAN networks (such as those comprised of more than 10000 nodes), each node might need 10's thousands of "fake addresses", which is very difficult to manage and requires lots of configuration tasks to get the nodes properly set up. ----------------- More are in the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis/ We look forward to comments, suggestions and objections. Thank you very much. Linda -----Original Message----- From: rtgwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 2:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group WG of the IETF. Title : Gap Analysis of Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs Authors : Linda Dunbar Andrew G. Malis Christian Jacquenet Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2019-06-19 Abstract: This document analyzes the technological gaps when using SD-WAN to dynamically interconnect workloads and applications hosted in rd various 3 party cloud data centers. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C702c4feeabf74674d3a608d6f4f0601b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636965710579388472&sdata=PxMtUZdFrkeIb5gh%2BBSXO5y3aOJ9GkTGIj5OHcKbzjk%3D&reserved=0 There are also htmlized versions available at: https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-02&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C702c4feeabf74674d3a608d6f4f0601b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636965710579388472&sdata=jJrKoSyeI%2FYl%2FVxwnC%2FWt2VrUs3z2cPyzEtJ2iv619M%3D&reserved=0 https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-02&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C702c4feeabf74674d3a608d6f4f0601b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636965710579388472&sdata=p1tOJDeZAfig110sJF5748r7w%2BuAxw2Id9XQyg4NUQY%3D&reserved=0 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-02&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C702c4feeabf74674d3a608d6f4f0601b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636965710579388472&sdata=rZyP0RdcQHkZvf1y0e8ZqCcuiHKlDSdfx4WlbYUfZeI%3D&reserved=0 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C702c4feeabf74674d3a608d6f4f0601b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636965710579388472&sdata=TXSGr8jvjQrSgaM9H6LDEudl9ZXk0%2BY1YTbZ%2BSvqZEk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
