Every Data Center fabric technology has to integrate seamlessly with legacy equipment running the venerable Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) or one of its facelifted incarnations (for example, RSTP or MST). The alternative, called rip-and-replace when talking about other vendors’ boxes or synchronized upgrade when promoting your wares (no, I haven’t heard it yet, but I’m sure it’s coming), is simply indigestible to most data center architects.

TRILL and Cisco’s proprietary Fabric Path take a very definitive stance: the new fabric is the backbone of the network routing TRILL-encapsulated layer-2 frames across bridged segments (TRILL) or contiguous backbone (Fabric Path). Both architectures segment the original STP domain into small chunks at the edges of the network as shown in the following figure:

In every enterprise-focused IPv6 presentation, including my Enterprise IPv6 – the first steps webinar, I’m telling the attendees that they can easily make their legacy applications reachable over IPv6 with a little help from F5 load balancers. After all, Facebook is doing exactly that, so it should work (in theory)… but as we all know, in practice, the theory and practice are wildly different.

Martin sent me an interesting challenge: he needs to connect an HP switch in a blade enclosure to a pair of Catalyst 3500G switches. His Catalysts are not stackable and he needs the full bandwidth between the switches, so he decided to fake the multi-chassis link aggregation functionality by configuring static LAG on the HP switch and disabling STP on it (the Catalysts have no idea they’re talking to the same switch):

Let’s assume we’re all past the IPv6 myths phase and know that IPv6 does not offer more (or less) inherent security than IPv4. Will the IPv6 networks be as secure as IPv4 ones? Not necessarily, because we’re lacking feature parity and implementation experience. As I explained in the “IPv6 security issues: Fixing implementation problems” I wrote for SearchTelecom:

We know the world will eventually run out of IPv4 addresses, but while at least some service providers got the message and already deployed IPv6, it seems like most enterprise IT departments still practice the denial strategy. It’s worrisome to read articles from Jeff Doyle describing the ignorance of his enterprise clients, so I’ll try (yet again) to explain why you should start IPv6 planning NOW.

I got an interesting question from Andrew:

Would you say that bridge assurance makes UDLD unnecessary? It doesn't seem clear from any resource I've found so far (either on Cisco's docs or on Google)."

It’s important to remember that UDLD works on physical links whereas bridge assurance works on top of STP (which also implies it works above link aggregation/port channel mechanisms). UDLD can detect individual link failure (even when the link is part a LAG); bridge assurance can detect unaggregated link failures, total LAG failure, misconfigured remote port or a malfunctioning switch.

A while ago Matthew Norwood wrote an excellent article describing the troubleshooting process they used to figure out why a particular web application worked way too slowly. Greg Ferro was quick to point out that it doesn’t make sense to assume the network is the problem and work through the whole chain slowly eliminating every potential networking device as the source of the problem when you might be facing an application design issue. However, there’s an even more important consideration: your network troubleshooting toolbox lacks the right troubleshooting tools for this job.

One of the interesting problems I was facing in the recent weeks was multi-tenant security. Combine it with fuzzy all-encompassing vapor-based terminology and you have a perfect mix that can fit anything you want to sell. In the Ensuring multi-tenant security in cloud services I wrote for SearchTelecom.com I tried to structure the cloudy visions a bit: let’s figure out which type of service we’re talking about, then we can discuss what security mechanisms make sense.

Chris Pollock from io Networks was kind enough to share yet another method of implementing DHCPv6 prefix delegation on PPP interfaces in his comment to my DHCPv6-RADIUS integration: the Cisco way blog post: if you tell the router not to use the Framed-IPv6-Prefix passed from RADIUS in the list of prefixes advertised in RA messages with the no ipv6 nd prefix framed-ipv6-prefix interface configuration command, the router uses the prefix sent from the RADIUS server as delegated prefix.

This setup works reliably in IOS release 15.0M. 12.2SRE3 (running on a 7206) includes the framed-IPv6-prefix in RA advertisements and DHCPv6 IA_PD reply, totally confusing the CPE.

In the Building Large IPv6 Service Provider Networks webinar I described how Cisco IOS uses two RADIUS requests to authenticate an IPv6 user (request#1) and get the delegated prefix (request#2). The second request is sent with a modified username (-dhcpv6 is appended to the original username) and an empty password (the fact that is conveniently glossed over in all Cisco documentation I found).

FreeRADIUS server is smart enough to bark at an empty password, to force the RADIUS server to accept a username with no password you have to use Auth-Type := Accept:

Site-A-dhcpv6   Auth-Type := Accept
        cisco-avpair = "ipv6:prefix#1=fec0:1:2400:1100::/56"