Urs Baumann invited me to have a guest lecture in his network automation course, and so I had the privilege of being in lovely Rapperswil last week, talking about the basics of real-life network automation.

Urs published the video recording of the presentation on YouTube; hope you’ll like it, and if you don’t get too annoyed by the overly pushy ads, watch the other videos from his infrastructure-as-code course.

The “should we use the same vendor for fabric spines and leaves?” discussion triggered the expected counterexamples. Here’s one:

I actually have worked with a few orgs that mix vendors at both spine and leaf layer. Can’t take names but they run fairly large streaming services. To me it seems like a play to avoid vendor lock-in, drive price points down and be in front of supply chain issues.

As always, one has to keep two things in mind:

One of my readers was building a private MPLS/VPN backbone and wondered whether they should use their public AS number or a private AS number for the backbone. Usually, it doesn’t matter; the deciding point was the way they want to connect to the public Internet:

We also plan to peer with multiple external ISPs to advertise our public IP space not directly from our PE routers but from dedicated Internet Routers, adding a firewall between our PEs and external Internet routers.

They could either run BGP between the PE routers, firewall, and WAN routers (see BGP as High-Availability Protocol for more details) or run BGP across a bump-in-the-wire firewall:

In the Do We Still Need OSPF Areas and Summarization? I wrote this somewhat cryptic remark:

The routers advertising a summarized prefix should be connected by a path going exclusively through the part of the network with more specific prefixes. GRE tunnel also satisfies that criteria; the proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

One of my readers asked for a lengthier explanation, so here we go. Imagine a network with two areas doing inter-area summarization on /24 boundary:

Milan Zapletal submitted the source code for a huge lab topology they built with netlab. It has almost 50 routers and over 50 Linux nodes to emulate end-users and servers.

They used netlab to configure VLANs, VRFs, IS-IS, OSPF, EIGRP, BGP, MPLS, VXLAN, and EVPN. Imagine how long it would take to configure all that by hand using a more traditional labbing tool.

If you need a good rant about Thought Leaders, Talent Gap, and Certification-Based-Hiring, look no further than I see a different gap from here!. Here’s a choice tidbit:

Every single job description that requires some sort of certification must be treated with suspicion. Demanding a certification usually means that you don’t know what you want, and you’re just outsourcing your thinking to someone else.

Have fun!

John Capobianco published the source code of his Packet Buddy application on GitHub. It’s a Python UI that takes a PCAP file, converts it to JSON, and includes that JSON as part of the ChatGPT chat, allowing you to discuss the captured packets with ChatGPT.

His idea is one of the best uses of generative AI in networking I’ve seen so far, as long as you remember that you’re dealing with an overconfident intern who has no problem making up an answer just to sound smart. Have fun!

Finally, if you don’t want to use ChatGPT (I wouldn’t blame you) or send captured data into The Cloud, someone already adapted his idea to use local LLMs.

Here’s an easy way to stop fat-finger incidents in which an end-user autonomous system redistributes IGP into BGP or advertises the whole DFZ routing table from affecting the entire Internet: limit the number of BGP prefixes your routers accept from your customers. You can practice this nifty feature in the next BGP lab exercise.

Another week, another Ansible quirk 🤷‍♂️ Imagine you have a long Jinja2 expression, and you want to wrap it into multiple lines to improve readability. Using multiline YAML format seems to be the ideal choice:

---
- name: Test playbook
  hosts: localhost
  tasks:
  - set_fact:
      a: >
        {{ 123 == 345 or
           123 > 345 }}

It works every time 50% of the time (this time depending on your Ansible version).

Daniel Dib tweeted about an old comment of mine a few days ago, adding¹:

Not surprisingly, that was bound to upset a few people, and Roman Dodin quickly pointed out the EVPN interoperability tests:

I wanted to include open-source networking-related software into netlab topologies since (at least) the days I was writing the DHCP relaying saga. It turned out to be a bit more complex than I anticipated (more about that in another blog post), but I hope you’ll find it useful. netlab release 1.8.0 includes dnsmasq running as a DHCP server and BIRD running OSPF and BGP. ExaBGP and GoBGP are already on the wish list; if you have any other ideas, please start a GitHub discussion.

I had a hard time finding reasonable container images for BIRD; the BIRD team does not publish them, and everything else I found looked either abandoned or a hobby project. The solution turned out to be exceedingly simple: you cannot run the containers without Docker anyway, which means the docker build command is just a few keystrokes away. I added Dockerfiles needed to build those containers to the netlab source code and implemented the netlab clab build command as a thin wrapper around docker build. It takes just a few seconds (plus the time it takes to download the Ubuntu container image) to build the containers you need.

In case you’ve heard about bufferbloat but don’t know what it is: Dan Groshev wrote a nice bufferbloat for dummies blog post on the APNIC blog.

A few weeks ago, Ethan Banks invited me to chat about netlab, and we had great fun discussing its intricacies for almost an hour. I also managed to win the Buzzword Bingo describing netlab as

Intent-based infrastructure-as-code digital twins lifecycle management system

The podcast was published a few days ago; listen to it on the PacketPushers website or YouTube.

One of the previous BGP labs explained how you can use session templates to configure common TCP or BGP session parameters. Some BGP implementations have another templating mechanism: policy templates that you can use to apply consistent routing policy parameters to an EBGP neighbor. You can practice them in the next BGP lab exercise.

Markku Leiniö sent me an interesting observation after writing a series of DHCP-relaying-related blog posts:

I was first using VyOS, but it uses the ISC DHCP relay, and that software relays unicast packets. The DHCP procedures eventually worked fine, but getting sensible outputs and explanations was a nightmare.

I quickly reproduced the behavior, but it took me almost half a year to turn it into a blog post. Engaging in a round of yak shaving (I wanted to implement DHCP in netlab first) didn’t exactly help, either.