After inspecting the confusing bridging/routing/switching terminology and a brief detour into the control/data plane details, let’s talk about how packets actually move across a network.

As always, things were simpler when networks were implemented with a single cable. In that setup, all nodes were directly reachable, and the only challenge was figuring out the destination node’s address; it didn’t matter whether it was a MAC address, an IP address, or a Fiber Channel address. On a single cable, you could just broadcast, like, “Who has this service?” and someone would reply, “I’m the printer you’re looking for.” That’s how many early non-IP protocols operated.

Dr. Tony Przygienda left a very valid (off-topic) comment to my Breaking APIs or Data Models Is a Cardinal Sin blog post:

If, on the other hand, the customers would not camp for literally tens of years on regex scripts scraping screens, lots of stuff could progress much faster.

He’s right, particularly from Juniper’s perspective; they were the first vendor to use a data-driven approach to show commands. Unfortunately, we’re still not living in a perfect world:

In a previous blog post, I described how OSPF route selection rules prevent a summary LSA from being inserted back into an area from which it was generated. That works nicely for area prefixes turned directly into summary LSAs, but how does the loop prevention logic work for summarized prefixes (what OSPF calls area ranges)?

TL&DR: It doesn’t, unless… ;)

A networking-focused entity known only as humblegrumble sent me the following question after reading my When OSPF Becomes a Distance Vector Protocol article:

How do A1 and A2 know not to advertise a Type-3 summary LSA generated from area 1 prefixes back into area 1?

He’s right. There is no “originating area” information in the type-3 LSA, so how does an ABR know not to reinsert the type-3 LSA generated by another ABR back into the area?

TL&DR: The OSPF route selection process takes care of that.

Imagine you decide to believe the marketing story of your preferred networking vendor and start using the REST API to configure their devices. That probably involves some investment in automation or orchestration tools, as nobody in their right mind wants to use curl or Postman to configure network devices.

A few months later, after your toolchain has been thoroughly tested, you decide to upgrade the operating system on the network devices, and everything breaks. The root cause: the vendor changed their API or the data model between software releases.

I wanted to test a loop prevention when propagating summary LSA across areas scenario (more about that in another blog post) using the lab topology I developed for the When OSPF Becomes a Distance Vector Protocol article.

I started the lab with the FRRouting routers and configured OSPF area ranges. Astonishingly, I discovered that the more-specific prefixes from an area appear as summary routes in the backbone area even when the area range is configured. When I tried to reproduce the scenario a few days later, it turned out to be a timing quirk (I didn’t wait long enough), but my squirrelly mind was already investigating.

After discussing networking layers and addressing, it’s time to focus on moving packets across a network. Vendors love to use ill-defined terms like switching instead of forwarding, routing, or bridging, so let’s start with the terminology.

Connecting all relevant devices to a single cable would indubitably simplify any networking stack, but unfortunately, we’re almost never that lucky. We need devices in the network (typically with multiple interfaces) that perform packet forwarding between end nodes.

Gabriel sent me a pointer to a blog post by Rudolph Bott describing the details of BGP Unnumbered implementations on Nokia, Juniper, and Bird.

Even more interestingly, Rudolph points out the elephant I completely missed: RFC 8950 refers to RFC 2545, which requires a GUA IPv6 next hop in BGP updates (well, it uses the SHALL wording, which usually means “troubles ahead”). What do you do if you’re running EBGP on an interface with no global IPv6 addresses? As expected, vendors do different things, resulting in another fun interoperability exercise.

Finally, there’s RFC 7404 that advocates LLA-only infrastructure links, so we might find the answer there. Nope; it doesn’t even acknowledge the problem in the Caveats section.

For even more information, read the Unnumbered IPv4 Interfaces and BGP in Data Center Fabrics blog posts.

The amount of weird stuff we discover in netlab integration tests is astounding, or maybe I have a knack for looking into the wrong dark corners (my wife would definitely agree with that). Today’s special: when having two next hops kills a static route.

TL&DR: default ARP settings on a multi-subnet Linux host are less than optimal.

We use these principles when creating netlab integration tests:

• They should contain a single device-under-test and a bunch of attached probes.
• They should test a single feature.
• They should not rely on the device-under-test. All validation has to be done on probes.

How do you test static routes under these restrictions? Here’s what we did:

I apologize for the rant; I have to vent my frustration with people whose quantity of opinions seems to be exceeding their experience (or maybe they’re coming from an alternate universe with different laws of physics, which would be way cool but also unlikely). You’ve been warned; please feel free to move on or skip the rant part of the blog post.

Rant mode: ON

This is the (unedited) gem I received after making some of my EVPN videos public:

When I was updating the Network Migration with BGP Local-AS Feature blog post, I wanted to execute the same command (show ip bgp) on all routers in my network.

Not a problem: since Dan Partelly added the netlab exec command, it’s as simple as netlab exec * show ip bgp. Well, not exactly; there are still a few quirks.

Daryll Swer posted a very informative response to my NAT Traversal Mess blog post, focusing on:

Punching holes through that firewall is equivalent to establishing NAT translations.

It would be a shame to let that response wither as small print at the bottom of a blog post; here it is:

As I started describing the iBGP Local-AS Details, I discovered that anything I ever wrote about the BGP local-as feature was hosted on a now-extinct website. Fortunately, I found a copy of that article in the Internet Archive and migrated it to the ipSpace.net blog. Hope you’ll like it ;)

The original Small Site Multihoming article has generated many responses, most of them being questions about the redundant implementation of the same principles. In this article, we’ll thus add a second customer router to add redundancy to the small site multi-homing design. The final design will still retain the administrative simplicity of the original solution – with no need to own public IP address space, autonomous system number, or to run Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).

Let’s look at another part of the lengthy comment Bob left after listening to the Rise of NAT podcast. This one is focused on the NAT traversal mess:

You mentioned that only video-conferencing and BitTorrent use client-to-client connectivity (and they are indeed the main use cases), but hell, do they need to engineer complex systems to circumvent these NATs and firewalls: STUN, TURN, ICE, DHT…

Cleaning up the acronym list first: DHT is unlike the others and has nothing to do with NAT.