Almost exactly a decade ago I wrote that VXLAN isn’t a data center interconnect technology. That’s still true, but you can make it a bit better with EVPN – at the very minimum you’ll get an ARP proxy and anycast gateway. Even this combo does not address the other requirements I listed a decade ago, but maybe I’m too demanding and good enough works well enough.

However, there is one other bit that was missing from most VXLAN implementations: LAN-to-WAN VXLAN-to-VXLAN bridging. Sounds weird? Supposedly a picture is worth a thousand words, so here we go.

There are (at least) two steps to get new functionality (like VLANs) implemented in netsim-tools:

• We have to develop a data transformation module that takes high-level lab-, node-, link- or interface attributes and transforms them into device data.
• Someone has to create Jinja2 templates for each supported device that transform per-device netsim-tools data into device configurations.

I usually implement new features on Cisco IOSv and Arista EOS¹, Stefano Sasso adds support for VyOS, Dell OS10, and Mikrotik RouterOS, and Jeroen van Bemmel adds Nokia SR Linux and/or SR OS support. That’s less than half of the platforms supported by netsim-tools, and anything you could do to help us increase the coverage would be highly appreciated.

In a recent blog post, Donal O Duibhir claims IPv6 is faster than IPv4… 39% of the time, which at a quick glance makes as much sense as “60% of the time it works every time”. The real reason for his claim is that there was no difference between IPv4 and IPv6 in ~30% of the measurements.

Unfortunately he measured only the Wi-Fi part of the connection (until the first-hop gateway); I hope he’ll keep going and measure response times from well-connected dual-stack sites like Google’s public DNS servers.

Last week’s IPv6 security video introduced the rogue IPv6 RA challenges and the usual countermeasure – RA guard. Unfortunately, IPv6 tends to be a wonderfully extensible protocol, creating all sorts of opportunities for nefarious actors and security researchers.

For years, the networking vendors were furiously trying to plug the holes created by the academically minded IPv6 designers in love with fragmented extension headers. In the meantime, security researches had absolutely no problem finding yet another weird combination of IPv6 headers that would bypass any IPv6 RA guard implementation until IETF gave up and admitted one cannot have “infinitely extensible” and “secure” in the same sentence.

In the previous blog post of the MLAG Technology Deep Dive series, we explored the intricacies of layer-2 unicast forwarding. Now let’s focus on layer-2 BUM¹ flooding functionality of an MLAG system.

Our network topology will have two switches and five hosts, some connected to a single switch. That’s not a good idea in an MLAG environment, but even if you have a picture-perfect design with everything redundantly connected, you will have to deal with it after a single link failure.

A few weeks ago I wrote about tradeoffs vendors have to make when designing data center switching ASICs, followed by another blog post discussing how to select the ASICs for various roles in data center fabrics.

You REALLY SHOULD read the two blog posts before moving on; here’s the buffer-related TL&DR for those of you ignoring my advice ;)

The early October 2021 Facebook outage generated a predictable phenomenon – couch epidemiologists became experts in little-known Bridging the Gap Protocol (BGP), including its Introvert and Extrovert variants. Unfortunately, I also witnessed several unexpected trips to Mount Stupid by people who should have known better.

To set the record straight: everyone’s been there, and the more vocal you tend to be on social media (including mailing lists), the more probable it is that you’ll take a wrong turn and end there. What matters is how gracefully you descend and what you’ve learned on the way back.

Last two weeks we focused on access VLANs and VLAN trunk netlab implementation. Can we combine them with VRFs? Of course.

The trick is very simple: attributes within a VLAN definition become attributes of VLAN interfaces. Add vrf attribute to a VLAN and you get all VLAN interfaces created for that VLAN in the corresponding VRF. Can’t get any easier, can it?

How about extending our VLAN trunk lab topology with VRFs? We’ll put red VLAN in red VRF and blue VLAN in blue VRF.

IPv6 security-focused presentations were usually an awesome opportunity to lean back and enjoy another round of whack-a-mole, often starting with an attacker using IPv6 Router Advertisements to divert traffic (see also: getting bored at Brussels airport) .

Rogue IPv6 RA challenges and the corresponding countermeasures are thus a mandatory part of any IPv6 security training, and Christopher Werny did a great job describing them in IPv6 security webinar.

A friend of mine started using Vagrant with libvirt years ago (it was his enthusiasm that piqued my interest in this particular setup, eventually resulting in netlab). Not surprisingly, he’s built Vagrant boxes for any device he ever encountered, created quite a collection that way, and would like to use them with netlab.

While I didn’t think about this particular use case when programming the netlab virtualization provider interface, I decided very early on that:

• Everything worth changing will be specified in the system defaults
• You will be able to change system defaults in topology file or user defaults.