It’s been a while since the last netlab release. Most of that time was spent refactoring stuff that you don’t care about, but you might like these features:
- You can run automated lab validation tests with the netlab validate command. I will explain how I use that in BGP labs in a few days.
- If you want to build large leaf-and-spine topologies, you’ll love the fabric plugin.
- The bgp.domain plugin allows you to create topologies with multiple sites using the same BGP AS number.
- The bgp.policy plugin got AS-path prepending.
- bgp.originate plugin can be used to originate BGP IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes.
As always, we also improved the platform support:
I’ve never personally done this on the net but….wouldn’t the BGP origin code also work with moving one’s ingress traffic similarly to AS PATH?
TL&DR: Sort of, but not exactly. Also, just because you can climb up ropes using shoelaces instead of jumars doesn’t mean you should.
Let’s deal with the moving traffic bit first.
What happens when you let a bunch of people work on different aspects of a solution without them ever talking to each other? You get DNS over IPv6. As nicely explained by Geoff Huston, this is just one of the bad things that could happen:
Around 30 years after we got the first website, the powers that be realized it might make sense to put this is how you access a web server information (including its IPv4 and IPv6 address, and HTTP(S) support information) directly into DNS, using HTTPS Resource Records. It took us long enough 🤷♂️
When I announced the lifetime ipSpace.net subscription in early September, I also mentioned that you won’t be able to purchase any ipSpace.net subscription after December 31st, 2023.
As of today, you have 30 days left to decide, and don’t wait till the last minute – I plan to turn off the purchasing process sometime during the business hours of December 31st as I hope to have more interesting things to do in the evening.
It might be fixed, but I can recall in the past that there was a lot of quirkiness in multi-vendor environments, especially in how different vendors use it and deal with the setting when the attribute does exist or does not have to exist.
TL&DR: He’s right. It has been fixed (mostly), but the nerd knobs never went away.
In case you’re wondering about the root cause, it was the vagueness of RFC 1771. Now for the full story ;)
It’s hard to influence the behavior of someone with strong opinions (just ask any parent with a screaming toddler), and trying to persuade an upstream ISP not to send the traffic over a backup link is no exception – sometimes even AS path prepending is not a strong enough argument.
An easy solution to this problem was proposed in 1990s – what if we could attach some extra attributes (called communities just to confuse everyone) to BGP updates and use them to tell adjacent autonomous systems to lower their BGP local preference? You can practice doing that in the Attach BGP Communities to Outgoing BGP Updates lab exercise.
Starting with RFC 4271, Route Resolvability Condition:
- A route without an outgoing interface is resolvable if its next hop is resolvable without recursively using the same route.
- A route with an outgoing interface is always considered resolvable.
- BGP routes can be resolved through routes with just a next hop or an outgoing interface.
George Davitiani put together a lovely proof-of-concept using GitHub actions to deploy modified configurations to network devices. Even better, he documented the whole setup, and the way to reproduce it. I’m positive you’ll find a few ideas browsing through what he did.
Daniel Teycheney decided not to renew his CCNP status and used this opportunity to publish his thoughts on IT certifications. Not surprisingly, I agree with most of the things he said, but I never put it in writing so succinctly.
Red Pill Warning: Reading his blog post might damage your rosy view of the networking industry. You’ve been warned ;)
In the previous lab, you learned how to use BGP Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED) to influence incoming traffic flow. Unfortunately, MED works only with parallel links to the same network. In a typical Redundant Internet Connectivity scenario, you want to have links to two ISPs, so you need a bigger hammer: AS Path Prepending.
A friend of mine sent me an interesting question along these lines:
We all know that in OSPF, the router ID is any 32-bit number, not necessarily an IP address of an interface. The only requirement is that it must be unique throughout the OSPF domain. However, I’ve always wondered what the role of BGP router ID is. RFC 4271 says it should be set to an IP address assigned to that BGP speaker, but where do we use it?
Also, he observed somewhat confusing behavior in the wild:
Take two routers and configure the same BGP identifier on both. Cisco IOS will not establish a session, while IOS XR and Junos will.
After checking what routers do when they receive a TCP SYN packet from an unknown source, I couldn’t resist checking how they cope with TCP SYN packets with too-low TTL when using TTL security, formally known as The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) defined in RFC 5082.
TL&DR: Not bad: most devices I managed to test did a decent job.
A while ago, I published a blog post describing how to establish a LAN/WAN L3 boundary in VXLAN/EVPN networks using Cisco NX-OS. At that time, I promised similar information for Arista EOS. Here it is, coming straight from Massimo Magnani. The useful part of what follows is his; all errors were introduced during my editing process.
In the cases I have dealt with so far, implementing the LAN-WAN boundary has the main benefit of limiting the churn blast radius to the local domain, trying to impact the remote ones as little as possible. To achieve that, we decided to go for a hierarchical solution where you create two domains, local (default) and remote, and maintain them as separate as possible.