A month ago I explained how using a BGP route reflector in a large-enough non-symmetrical network could result in suboptimal routing (or loss of path diversity or multipathing). I also promised to explain how Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP functionality1 solves that problem. Here we go…
I extended the original lab with another router to get a scenario where one route reflector (RR) client should use equal-cost paths to an external destination while another RR client should select a best path that is different from what the route reflector would select.
More than a decade ago (before SD-WAN was even a thing) I wrote an article describing how easy it is to route different applications onto different links (MPLS/VPN versus IPsec tunnels) using a distance vector routing protocol (preferably BGP, although even RIP would work).
You might find it interesting that it’s possible to solve tough problems with good network design instead of proprietary unicorn dust, so I salvaged the article from some dusty archive, cleaned it up, polished it, and published it on ipSpace.net.
I wanted to write a blog post explaining the intricacies of Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP, got into a yak-shaving exercise when discussing the need to exchange BGP capabilities to enable this feature, and decided to turn it into a separate prerequisite blog post. The optimal path selection with BGP AddPath post is coming in a few days.
Whenever you want to use BGP for something else than simple IPv4 unicast routing the BGP neighbors must agree on what they are willing to do – be it multiprotocol extensions and individual additional address families, graceful restart, route refresh… (IANA has the complete BGP Capability Codes registry).
Stefano Sasso took my “Don’t complain, submit a PR” advice seriously and did a wonderful job adding support for Mikrotik RouterOS and VyOS to netsim-tools, increasing the number of supported platforms to twelve. His additions are available in release 1.0.2 which also includes:
- Automatic creation of groups based on BGP AS numbers
- Group-wide node attributes
- Experimental support for Python plugins
In Git as a source of truth for network automation, Vincent Bernat explained why they decided to use Git-managed YAML files as the source of truth in their network automation project instead of relying on a database-backed GUI/API product like NetBox.
Their decision process was pretty close to what I explained in Data Stores and Source of Truth parts of Network Automation Concepts webinar: you need change logging, auditing, reviews, and all-or-nothing transactions, and most IPAM/CMDB products have none of those.
Christopher Hart wrote a great blog post explaining the fundamentals of how packet load balancing works on network devices. Enjoy.
Here’s one of the secrets to AWS’s unprecedented scale and financial success: they figured out very early on that some services are not worth delivering. Most everyone else believes in building snowflake single-customer solutions to solve imaginary problems, effectively losing money while doing so.
A friend of mine sent me a link to a lengthy convoluted document describing the 17-step procedure (with the last step having 10 micro-steps) to follow if you want to run NSX manager on top of N-VDS, or as they call it: Deploy a Fully Collapsed vSphere Cluster NSX-T on Hosts Running N-VDS Switches1.
You might not be familiar with vSphere networking and the way NSX-T uses that (in which case I can highly recommend vSphere and NSX webinars), so here’s a CliffsNotes version of it: you want to put the management component of NSX-T on top of the virtual switch it’s managing, and make it accessible only through that virtual switch. What could possibly go wrong?
I got into an interesting debate after I published the Anycast Works Just Fine with MPLS/LDP blog post, and after a while it turned out we have a slightly different understanding what anycast means. Time to fall back to a Wikipedia definition:
Anycast is a network addressing and routing methodology in which a single destination IP address is shared by devices (generally servers) in multiple locations. Routers direct packets addressed to this destination to the location nearest the sender, using their normal decision-making algorithms, typically the lowest number of BGP network hops.
Based on that definition, any transport technology that allows the same IP address or prefix to be announced from several locations supports anycast. To make it a bit more challenging, I would add “and if there are multiple paths to the anycast destination that could be used for multipath forwarding1, they should all be used”.
When I wrote the Why Does Internet Keep Breaking? blog post a few weeks ago, I claimed that FRR still uses single-threaded routing daemons (after a too-cursory read of their documentation).
Donald Sharp and Quentin Young politely told me
I was an idiot I should get my facts straight, I removed the offending part of the blog post, promised to write another one going into the details, and Quentin improved the documentation in the meantime, so here we are…
Using custom templates to test IP anycast with MPLS was fun, but as I got into interesting discussions focusing on convoluted details, I found myself going through the same set of steps too many times.
It started with the need to specify individual devices in netlab config command to create new loopback interfaces on anycast servers but not on any other device in the lab. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a group of devices (similar to Ansible groups) that one could use in the limit parameter of netlab config?
Another must-read masterpiece by Julia Evans: how to get useful answers to your questions.
After a brief coverage of the theoretical aspects of network addressing, it’s time to pay a brief visit to the early data-link-layer addressing solutions, from one address per datagram/frame (SDLC, HDLC) and ignore this address (PPP) to no address on P2P links (SLIP).