We all know that IPv6 handles host network parameter initialization a bit different than IPv4 (where we usually use DHCP), but the details could still confuse you if you’re just entering the IPv6 world.

A typical LAN-attached hosts needs its own address as well as the addresses of the default router and DNS server. DHCPv4 provides all three; in the IPv6 world you need two or three protocols as summarized in the following table

One of the questions answered in my Data Center Interconnect webinar is: “what options do I have to build a layer-2 interconnect with transport technology X”, with X ∈ {dark-fiber, DWDM, SONET, pseudowire, VPLS, MPLS/VPN, IP}. VPLS is one of the tougher nuts to crack; it provides a switched LAN emulation, usually with no end-to-end spanning tree (which you wouldn’t want to have anyway).

Imagine the following simple scenario where we want to establish redundant connectivity between two data centers and the only transport technology we can get is VPLS (or some other Carrier Ethernet LAN service):

If I could design my dream data center with total disregard to today’s limitations (and technologies from an alternate universe), it would have optimal connectivity between any two endpoints (real or virtual), no limits on VM mobility and on-demand L4-7 services insertion (be it firewalling, load balancing or something else) ... all of that implemented on truly scalable trombone-free networking infrastructure (in a dream world I don’t care whether it’s called routing or bridging).

A while ago someone asked me whether I think FC-over-MPLS would be a good PhD thesis. My response: while it’s always a good move to combine two totally unrelated fields in your PhD thesis (that almost guarantees you will be able to generate several unique and thus publishable articles), FCoMPLS might be tough because you’d have to make MPLS lossless. However, where there’s a will, there’s a way ... straight from the haze of the “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should” cloud comes FC-BB_PW defined in FC-BB-5 and several IETF drafts.

My first brief encounter with FCoMPLS was a twitxchange with Miroslaw Burnejko who responded to my “must be another lame joke” tweet with a link to a NANOG presentation briefly mentioning it and an RFC draft describing the FCoMPLS flow control details. If you know me, you have probably realized by now that I simply had to dig deeper.

During one of the iSCSI/FC/FCoE tweetstorms @stu made an interesting claim: FC scales to thousands of nodes; iSCSI can’t do that.

You know I’m no storage expert, but I fail to see how FC would be inherently (architecturally) better than iSCSI. I would understand someone claiming that existing host or storage iSCSI adapters behave worse than FC/FCoE adapters, but I can’t grasp why properly implemented iSCSI network could not scale.

Some of the e-mails and comments I received after writing the “Changing VPNv4 route attributes” post illustrated common MPLS/VPN misconceptions, so it’s worth addressing them in a series of posts. Let’s start with the simplest scenario: load balancingsharing toward a multi-homed customer site. We’ll use a very simple MPLS/VPN network with three customer sites, four CE-routers, four PE-routers a route reflector:

One of my favorite vendors has been talking about Doing More With Less for years. Thanks to Scott Adams, we finally know what it means ;)

Every time I mention that Cisco IOS had Local Area Mobility (LAM) (the feature that would come quite handy in today’s virtualized data centers) more than a decade ago, someone inevitably asks “why don’t we use it?” LAM looks like a forgotten step-child, abandoned almost as soon as it was created (supposedly it never got VRF support). The reason is simple (and has nothing to do with the size of L3 forwarding tables): LAM was always meant to be a short-term kludge and L3 gurus never appreciated its potentials.

John (not a real name for obvious reasons) sent me an interesting challenge after attending my Enterprise MPLS/VPN Deployment webinar. He’s designed an MPLS/VPN network approximated by the following diagram:

I just read a great article by Kurt (the Network Janitor) Bales eloquently describing how a series of stupid decisions led to the current situation where everyone (but the people who actually work with the networking infrastructure) think stretched layer-2 domains are the mandatory stepping stone toward the cloudy nirvana.

It’s easy to shift the blame to everyone else, including storage vendors (for their love of FC and FCoE) and VMware (for the broken vSwitch design), but let’s face the reality: the rigid mindset of layer-3 gurus probably has as much to do with the whole mess as anything else.