A Generic High-Performance Architecture for VPN Gateways
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe use of citations in the paper should be more rational. For example, citations [6-8] indicate that VPN technology is widely used to ensure reliable and stable communication between clients and the cloud, or between interconnected clouds. Would a single review paper suffice for this purpose? Regarding DPDK, netmap, and PF RING ZC [22-24], does each citation correspond to a specific network framework? The placement of these citations needs to be adjusted.
Other suggestions include merging Chapters 1-3 of the paper to clearly discuss the problem, the solution methods, and the technical background within two chapters. Does the performance bottleneck analysis in Chapter 3 have a theoretical basis or a formal representation? Also, can the formal representation in Section 4.2 be simplified? Can it be used to define the problem? Chapter 4 should clearly organize the methodology of the paper, explicitly stating the main contributions and innovations. The data analysis in the paper is rational. However, it is necessary to verify whether there is data support or a clear analysis for the impact of the proposed method modules on the performance analysis of HP-VPN.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English expression of the paper is understandable, but the content of the paper is redundant and needs to be clearer and more concise.
Author Response
|
We would like to show our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers who spent time reading this paper and offering valuable comments for us to improve the quality of our work. All comments raised have been carefully considered in revising the paper. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a Generic High-Performance Architecture (GHPA) for VPN gateways，including a generic VPN core framework and a DPDK-based GHPA. The formulation of VPN core framework is well-written and its related algorithms are explained well. Experimental results prove that the performance of VPN based on GHPA is superior to other common VPNs significantly.
Following are some minor comments before acceptance for publication.
(1) Enumerate your contributions explicitly in Introduction after “To improve the performance ··· for VPN gateways.”
(2) Revising spelling mistakes In conclusion：
“From the perspec- tive of generality”——>“From the perspective of generality”，
“VPN communi- cation” ——> “VPN communication”
“From the per- spective of high performance ”——>” From the perspective of high performance”
(3) Revising language mistakes In conclusion：
“environment” ——> “environments”
“the performance of VPN gateways” ——> “performance of VPN gateways”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
|
We would like to show our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers who spent time reading this paper and offering valuable comments for us to improve the quality of our work. All comments raised have been carefully considered in revising the paper. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study proposes a 3-layer GHPA for VPN gateways by designing a DPDK-based VPN packets processing layer, implementing a user space basic protocol stack, and applying the scheme to a generic VPN core framework.
The article can be enhanced by addressing the following:
1—The number of keywords is insufficient, and the authors should add an additional 2-3 keywords.
2—The introduction needs significant improvement. It is too short and does not cover what is needed in the area in general and in the subject under investigation in particular.
3—The introduction should include the paper's contribution in three to four bullet points in the second to last paragraph.
4—The related work section is minimal, and the authors should expand on it by researching the latest research, stating what makes their work different, and identifying gaps they are trying to address.
5- A table of acronyms will enhance the readability of the paper.
6- A table of symbols will increase the paper's understandability, and the authors should add this to the article.
7- DPDK was never mentioned in expansion form what it means; the authors must use the full name before using the abbreviation.
8- The number of references needs to be increased; the authors need to increase the number of referenes by 7- 11 recent studies.
9- The authors are encouraged to regenerate colored figures for the results.
10- To magnify the authenticity of the research and to enhance the credibility of the study, the authors should perform ANOVA for the results obtained.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor edits.
Author Response
|
We would like to show our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers who spent time reading this paper and offering valuable comments for us to improve the quality of our work. All comments raised have been carefully considered in revising the paper. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors11- Figure 9 need to be replaced with visible one
22- The authors need to explain the main contributions of this research
33- It is suggested to add this article in the related work:-
- Elhanashi, A.; Dini, P.; Saponara, S.; Zheng, Q. Integration of Deep Learning into the IoT: A Survey of Techniques and Challenges for Real-World Applications. Electronics 2023, 12, 4925. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12244925
4- Describe the three components or layers of the 3-layer GHPA model proposed for VPN gateways.
5- Authors need to more explain VPN bottlenecks and improvements 65 of VPN performance,
6- Furthermore, the conclusion section should incorporate the limitations of the conducted study. Identifying these limitations will provide context for interpreting the results and suggest areas for future research. Overall, while the study demonstrates merit, improvements in the manuscript's writing, including clear justification for methodology choices and addressing limitations, will enhance its readability and impact. Additionally, attention to grammar and clarity is necessary.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Further proof reading is required by authors
Author Response
|
We would like to show our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers who spent time reading this paper and offering valuable comments for us to improve the quality of our work. All comments raised have been carefully considered in revising the paper. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor edits.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been implemented and can be accepted
