After figuring out what business problem you’re trying to solve and what the users expect to get from you it’s time for the next crucial question: should you buy a shrink-wrapped product/solution or build your own? I addressed that question in the third part of Focus on Business Challenges First presentation.

Not surprisingly, the same dilemma applies to network automation solutions, and is often the source of endless time-wasting discussions that I really should have stopped engaging in, but sometimes duty calls ;)

Continuing our Fast Failover saga, let’s focus on techniques and technologies available to implement it (assuming you still think it’s worth the effort).

There are numerous technologies you can use to implement fast reroute, from the most complex to the easiest one:

One of my readers encountered an interesting problem when upgrading a data center fabric to 100 Gbps leaf-to-spine links:

• They installed new fiber cables and SFPs;
• Everything looked great… until someone started complaining about application performance problems.
• Nothing else has changed, so the culprit must have been the network upgrade.
• A closer look at monitoring data revealed CRC errors on every leaf switch. Obviously something was badly wrong with the whole batch of SFPs.

Fortunately, my reader took a closer look at the data before they requested a wholesale replacement… and spotted an interesting pattern:

A while ago we had an interesting exchange of ideas around inserting high-availability network appliance into a public cloud environment (TL&DR: it was really hard until AWS introduced Gateway Load Balancing), and someone quickly pointed out we’re solving the wrong challenge because…

Azure Firewall […] is a fully stateful firewall-as-a-service with built-in high-availability.

Somehow he wasn’t too happy when I pointed out that there’s more to high availability than vendor marketing ;)

Remember my BGP route selection rules are a clear failure of intent-based networking paradigm blog post? I wrote it almost three years ago, so maybe you want to start by rereading it…

Making long story short: every large network is a unique snowflake, and every sufficiently convoluted network architect has unique ideas of how BGP route selection should work, resulting in all sorts of crazy extended BGP communities, dozens if not hundreds of nerd knobs, and 2000+ pages of BGP documentation for a recent network operating system (no, unfortunately I’m not joking).

Dealing with protocols that embed network-layer addresses into application-layer messages (like FTP or SIP) is great fun, more so if the said protocol traverses a NAT device that has to find the IP addresses embedded in application messages while translating the addresses in IP headers. For whatever reason, the content rewriting functionality is called application-level gateway (ALG).

Even when we’re faced with a monstrosity like FTP or SIP that should have been killed with napalm a microsecond after it was created, there’s a proper way of doing things and a fast way of doing things. You could implement a protocol-level proxy that would intercept control-plane sessions… or you could implement a hack that tries to snoop TCP payload without tracking TCP session state.

Not surprisingly, the fast way of doing things usually results in a wonderful attack surface, more so if the attacker is smart enough to construct HTTP requests that look like SIP messages. Enjoy ;)

More than a decade ago I published tons of materials on a web site that eventually disappeared into digital nirvana, leaving heaps of broken links on my blog. I decided to clean up those links, and managed to save some of the vanished content from the Internet Archive:

• OSPF Flooding Filters in Hub-and-Spoke Environments
• Implicit and Explicit Null Label in MPLS networks
• Default Routes in BGP
• Filter Excessively Prepended BGP Paths

I also updated dozens of blog posts while pretending to be Indiana Jones, including:

It’s amazing how far you can get if you keep doing something for a long-enough time. In a bit over 10 years (the initial versions of the earliest still-active webinars were created in October 2010), we accumulated over 300 hours of online content available with ipSpace.net subscription, plus another 130 hours of online course content.

Obviously I couldn’t have done that myself. Thanks a million to Irena who took over most of the day-to-day business a few years ago, dozens of authors, and thousands of subscribers who enabled us to make it all happen.

One of my subscribers trying to figure out how to improve his career choices sent me this question:

I am Sr. Network Engineer with 12+ Years’ experience. I was quit happy with my networking skills but will all the recent changes I’m confused. I am not able to understand what are the key skills I should learn as a network engineer to keep myself demandable.

Before reading the rest of this blog post, please read Cloud and the Three IT Geographies by Massimo Re Ferre.

In previous blog posts in this series we discussed whether it makes sense to invest into fast failover network designs, the topologies you can use in such designs, and the fault detection techniques. I also hinted at different fast failover implementations; this blog post focuses on some of them.

Hardware-based failover changes the hardware forwarding tables after a hardware-detectable link failure, most likely loss-of-light or transceiver-reported link fault. Forwarding hardware cannot do extensive calculations; the alternate paths are thus usually pre-programmed (more details below).

A while ago (eons before AWS introduced Gateway Load Balancer) I discussed the intricacies of AWS and Azure networking with a very smart engineer working for a security appliance vendor, and he said something along the lines of “it shows these things were designed by software developers – they have no idea how networks should work.”

In reality, at least some aspects of public cloud networking come closer to the original ideas of how IP and data-link layers should fit together than today’s flat earth theories, so he probably wanted to say “they make it so hard for me to insert my virtual appliance into their network.”

Tom Hollingsworth wrote another must-read blog post in which he explained what one should do before asking for help:

If someone comes to me and says, “I tried this and it failed and I got this message. I looked it up and the response didn’t make sense. Can you tell me why that is?” I rejoice. That person has done the legwork and narrowed the question down to the key piece they need to know.

In other words (again his), do your homework first and then ask relevant questions.

After explaining why you should focus on defining the problem before searching for a magic technology that will solve it, I continued the Focus on Business Challenges First presentation with another set of seemingly simple questions:

• Who are your users/customers?
• What do they really need?
• Assuming you’re a service provider, what are you able to sell to your customers… and how are you different from your competitors?

In the blog post introducing fast failover challenge I mentioned several typical topologies used in fast failover designs. It’s time to explore them.

The Basics

Fast failover is (by definition) adjustment to a change in network topology that happens before a routing protocol wakes up and deals with the change. It can therefore use only locally available information, and cannot involve changes in upstream devices. The node adjacent to the failed link has to deal with the failure on its own without involving anyone else.

A Network Artist sent me a long list of OSPF-related questions after watching the Routing Protocols section of our How Networks Really Work webinar. Starting with an easy one:

From historical perspective, any idea why OSPF guys invented their own transport protocol instead of just relying upon TCP?

I wasn’t there when OSPF was designed, but I have a few possible explanations. Let’s start with the what functionality should the transport protocol provide reasons: