I’ve been mentioning LISP several times during the last months. It seems to be the only viable solution to the global IP routing table explosion. All other proposals require modifying layers above IP and while that’s where the problem should have been solved, expecting those layers to change any time soon is like waiting for Godot.

If you’re interested in LISP, start with the introduction to LISP I wrote for Search Telecom, continue with the LISP tutorial from NANOG 45 and (for the grand finale) listen to three Google Talks from Dino (almost four hours).

Read my article @ SearchTelecom.com

Yesterday I wrote that you don’t need DCB technologies to implement FCoE in your network. The FC-BB-5 standard is quite explicit (it also says that 802.1Qbb is the other option):

Lossless Ethernet may be implemented through the use of some Ethernet extensions. A possible Ethernet extension to implement Lossless Ethernet is the PAUSE mechanism defined in IEEE 802.3-2008.

The PAUSE mechanism (802.3x) gives you lossless behavior, but results in undesired side effects when you run LAN and SAN traffic across a converged Ethernet infrastructure.

The emerging Ethernet bridging technologies have been hyped to an extent where the lines between them completely blurred, resulting in statements like “we need DCB and TRILL for FCoE”. Actually, none of that is true, but let’s focus on DCB and TRILL first.

During the Big Hot and Heavy Switches podcast, Dan Hughes complained that the Nexus 7000 switch cannot take the full BGP table. The reason is simple: it’s TCAM (FIB) has only 56.000 entries and the BGP table has almost 350.000 routes.

Nexus 7000 is a Data Center switch, so the TCAM size is not really a limitation (it would usually have a default route toward the WAN core), but the same problem is experienced by Service Providers all over the world – the TCAM/FIB size of their high-speed routers is limited.

Every now and then, I’m asked about the difference between Routing Information Base (RIB), also known as IP Routing Table and Forwarding Information Base (FIB), also known as CEF table (on Cisco’s devices) or IP forwarding table.

Let’s start with an overview picture (which does tell you more than the next thousand words I’ll write):

IT World Canada has recently published an interesting “Disband the ITU's IPv6 Group, says expert” article. I can’t agree more with the title or the first message of the article: there is no reason for the IPv6 ITU group to exist. However, as my long-time readers know, that’s old news ... and the article is unfortunately so full of technical misinformation and myths and that I hardly know where to begin. Trying to be constructive, let’s start with the points I agree with.

IPv6 was designed to meet the operational needs that existed 20 years ago. Absolutely true. See my IPv6 myths for more details.

ITU-T has spun up two groups that are needlessly consuming international institutional resources. Absolutely in agreement (but still old news). I also deeply agree with all the subsequent remarks about ITU-T and needless politics (not to mention the dire need of most of ITU-T to find some reason to continue existing). That part of the article should become a required reading for any standardization body.

And now for (some of) the points I disagree with:

2019-09-01: Stumbled upon this old blog post and fixed the "IAB adoption of CLNP" part. Would love to know more about what was going on, but couldn't find any details apart from a few vague mentions.

If you’re in the Service Provider business, this is (hopefully) old news: on Friday, RIPE decided to experiment with the Internet causing routers running IOS-XR to hiccup. They stopped the experiment in less than half an hour and only 2% of the Internet was affected according to Renesys analysis (a nice side effect: Tassos had great fun decoding the offending BGP attribute from hex dumps).

My first gut reaction was “something’s doesn’t feel right”. A BGP bug in IOS-XR affects only 2% of the Internet? Here are some possible conclusions:

The FCoE confusion spread by networking vendors has reached new heights with contradictory claims that you need TRILL to run multihop FCoE (or maybe you don’t) and that you don’t need congestion control specified in 802.1Qau standard (or maybe you do). Allow me to add to your confusion: they are all correct ... depending on how you implement FCoE.

In his HSRP, vPC and the vPC peer-gateway command post Jeremy Filliben documents how the storage vendors ignore RFCs and implement what they think is proper ARP handling, causing havoc in a redundant network.

Andrew Vonnagy writes about another extreme stupidity customer convenience Microsoft managed to implement: you can turn any Windows 7 into a rogue Access Point. Like we didn’t have enough problems already.

And then there’s Charles Stross, taking the “where we went wrong” rants observations to a completely new level. While I’m complaining about lack of session layer in TCP/IP and broken socket API, he’s taking on Von Neumann architecture.

The storage industry has a very specific view of the networking protocols – they expect the network to be extremely reliable, either by making it lossless or by using a transport protocol (TCP + embedded iSCSI checksums) that was only recently made decently fast.

Some of their behavior can be easily attributed to network-blindness and attempts to support legacy protocols that were designed for a completely different environment 25 years ago, but we also have to admit that the server-to-storage sessions are way more critical than the user-to-server application sessions.

The debate whether the DCB standards are complete or not and thus whether FCoE is a standard-based technology are entering the metaphysical space (just a few more blog posts and they will join the eternal angels-on-a-hairpin problem), but somehow the vendors are not yet talking about the real issues: when will we see the standards implemented in shipping products and will there be a need to upgrade the hardware.

Read more ... (yet again @ etherealmind.com)

We all know that IPv6 deployment is a chicken-and-egg problem: Service Providers are slow to adopt IPv6 because they can’t charge for it and the content providers don’t care because there are no IPv6 customers.

My good friend Jan Žorž got a great idea during the Google IPv6 Implementers Conference and finally managed to write it down: all we need is a slight search engine preference for sites reachable over IPv4 and IPv6. A small well-publicized tweak in Google’s scoring algorithm would push the content providers toward IPv6 and force web hosting companies to roll out IPv6 support immediately.

Two interesting QoS-focused posts from last week: Brad Hedlund was explaining the difference between UCS and HP Virtual Connect QoS (short summary: one does queuing, the other one rate-limiting) and Russell Heilling nicely described the QoS problems encountered in a Service Provider network (he’s coming to the same conclusion as I did: we need per-user queuing, but describes it way more eloquently).

After I’d stumbled upon Russell’s blog, I started reading his older posts and found a nice in-depth explanation of one potential road to Net Neutrality hell paved with good intentions.

And, in a blitz of late news, ATAoE has resurrected like Phoenix from its ashes.

The CFO magazine has recently published a FUDful article “Trouble Looms for Company Websites” (read it to see what CFOs have to deal with). Obviously, some people think it’s a good idea to throw FUD at CFOs to get the budget to implement IPv6. Long term, it’s a losing strategy; your CFO will become immune to anything coming from the IT department and ignore the real warnings.

Yes, it's time to make your content reachable over IPv4 and IPv6, more so if you’re in the eyeballs business. Google knows that. So does Facebook. Twitter doesn’t seem to care. Maybe because they’re not selling ads?

Brian Johnson started a lively “I don’t need no stinking firewall” discussion on NANOG mailing list in January 2010. I wanted to write about the topic then, but somehow the post slipped through the cracks… and I’m glad it did, as I’ve learned a few things in the meantime, including the (now obvious) fact that no two data centers are equal (the original debate had to do with protecting servers in large-scale data center).

First let’s rephrase the provocative headline from the discussion. The real question is: do I need a stateful firewall or is a stateless one enough?