When I started making my first wobbling steps into the Junos MPLS world, Dan (@Johansfo) Backman took time to explain the differences between Cisco IOS and Junos MPLS implementations (and some of the reasons they are so different). This is my feeble attempt at describing what I understood he told me.

If you’re looking for a simple virtual switch, look no further than VMware’s venerable vSwitch. It runs very few control protocols (just CDP or LLDP, no STP or LACP), has no dynamic MAC learning, and only a few knobs and moving parts – ideal for simple deployments. Of course you have to pay for all that ease-of-use: designing a scalable vSwitch-based solution is tough (but then it all depends on what kind of environment you’re building).

For whatever reason I decided to start my Junos experience with a very simple IS-IS network – four core routers from my Building IPv6 Service Provider Core webinar. As Junosphere doesn’t support serial or POS interfaces, I migrated all links to Gigabit Ethernet and added a point-to-point GE link between PE-A and PE-B.

Dan sent me an interesting comment after watching my Data Center 3.0 webinar:

I have a different view regarding VMware vSwitch. For me its the best thing happened in my network in years. The vSwitch is so simple, and its so hard to break something in it, that I let the server team to do what ever they want (with one small rule, only one vNIC per guest). I never have to configure a server port again :).

As always, the right answer is “it depends” – what kind of vSwitch you need depends primarily on your requirements.

Jónatan Þór Jónasson took the time to implement Wake-on-LAN functionality using UDP support introduced in Cisco IOS Tcl in release 15.1(1)T. He found a TCL/TK example of a magic packet being sent, used that as a base, and with small modifications got it to work on his router. Here‘s his code (it’s obviously a proof-of-concept, but you need just a few more lines to get a working Tclsh script):

If you read my Twitter stream, you’ve probably realized I’d been stupid enough to decide to do another multi-vendor experiment: I’m trying to figure out whether an old grump can adapt to a MacBook Air.

Warning: What follows is a rant. You might want to skip this one and read something more technical.

Many service providers choosing IS-IS as their IGP use it within a single area (or at least run all routers as L1L2 routers). Multi-level IS-IS design is a royal pain, more so in MPLS environments where every PE-router needs a distinct route for every BGP next hop (but of course there’s a nerd knob to disable L1 default route in IS-IS). Moreover, MPLS TE is reasonably simple only within a single level (L1 or L2).

I’m positive at least some service providers do something as stupid as I usually did – deploy IS-IS with default settings using a configuration similar to this one:

My Junos versus Cisco IOS: Explicit versus Implicit received a huge amount of helpful comments, some of them slightly philosophical, others highly practical – from using interfaces all combined with interface disable in routing protocol configuration, to using configuration groups (more about that fantastic concept in another post).

However, understanding what’s going on is not the same as being able to explain it in one sentence ... and Dan (@jonahsfo) Backman beautifully nailed that one.

You’re probably tired of this story by now: public IPv4 addresses are running out, lots of content is available only over IPv4, and so the service providers use NAT to give new clients (with no public IPv4 address) access to old content. It doesn’t matter which NAT variant the service provider is using, be it Carrier Grade Nat (CGN), NAT64, DS-Lite or A+P, the crucial problem is always the same: multiple users are hidden behind a single source IP address.

Best design information of the week: Chris Marget write a series on practical data center network designs (10GE servers connected to Nexus 5K) – Part 1 describes ToR Nexus 5596, Part 2 ToR Nexus 5548 and Part 3 a pair of Nexus 5548 with ToR FEX.

And here’s the rest of my Inbox collection:

My first Junos labbing project was an IPv6 backbone; I wanted to create a simple single-area IS-IS/BGP-free backbone running LDP and MPLS, and using 6PE for IPv6 connectivity. Needless to say, even though I read the excellent Day One books (highly recommended: Exploring IPv6, Advanced IPv6 configuration and Deploying MPLS), I stumbled on almost every step.

Michel sent me a detailed e-mail describing both his enthusiasm with vPC and the headaches consistency checker is causing him. Here’s the good part:

Nexus vPC seems like a perfect solution for real multi-chassis etherchannel. At work we're using it extensively on a few pairs of Nexus 7000's.

... and then it turns sour:

However, there is one MAJOR drawback with vPC at this time, it's the way the consistency checker works (or rather, does not work). We've come across two specific situations where consistency checker will bring down your beautiful and redundant vPC link, and we've found no way around.

Here are his problems:

The comments igp2bgp and Tiziano Tofoni made to my LDP-IGP Synchronization in MPLS Networks post prompted me to look deeper into basic Junos MPLS configuration and LDP behavior. As expected, there are some significant differences between Cisco’s and Juniper’s LDP implementations (and, as is usually the case, they’re both strictly conformant with RFC 5036).

One of the comments I usually get about OpenFlow is “sounds great and I’m positive Yahoo! and Google will eventually use it, but I see no enterprise use case.” (see also this blog post). Obviously nobody would go for a full-blown native OpenFlow deployment and we’ll probably see hybrid (ships-in-the-night) approach more often in research labs than in enterprise networks, but there’s always the integrated mode that allows you to add OpenFlow-based functionality on top of existing networking infrastructure.

A reader of my blog planning to migrate his network from a traditional BGP-everywhere design to a BGP-over-MPLS one wondered about potential unexpected consequences. The MTU implications of introducing MPLS in a running network are usually well understood (even though you could get some very interesting behavior); if you can, increase the MTU size by at least 16 bytes (4 labels) and check whether MTU includes L2 header. Another somewhat more mysterious beast is the interaction between IGP and LDP that can cause traffic disruptions after the physical connectivity has been reestablished.