OSPF Configuration in Phase 1 DMVPN Network

This is how you configure OSPF in a Phase 1 DMVPN network (read the introductory post and Phase 1 DMVPN fundamentals first):

Remember:

  • Use point-to-multipoint network type on the hub router to ensure the hub router is always the IP next hop for the DMVPN routes.
  • Use point-to-multipoint network type on the spoke routers to ensure the OSPF timers match with the hub router.
  • The DMVPN part of your network should be a separate OSPF area; if at all possible, make it a stub or NSSA area.
  • If absolutely needed, use OSPF LSA flood filter on the hub router and a static default route on the spokes.

For more information, watch the DMVPN Technology and Configuration webinar.

see 4 comments

DMVPN Phase 1 Fundamentals

Phase 1 DMVPN in a nutshell:

  • Point-to-point GRE tunnel on spoke routers
  • Multipoint GRE tunnel on the hub router.
  • All the DMVPN traffic (including the traffic between the spokes) flows through the hub router.
  • On the spoke routers, the hub router must be the IP next-hop for all destinations reachable through the DMVPN subnet (including other spokes).
  • Multicast packets (including routing protocol hello packets and routing updates) are exchanged only between the hub and the spoke routers.
read more see 1 comments

Sometimes You Need to Step Back and Change Your Design

A few days ago I received the following e-mail from one of my readers:

I am trying presently to put in place a DMVPN solution running OSPF. I was wondering if you ever saw a solution with dual hub dual cloud design with OSPF working in practice because since I started I have issue with asymmetric routing because of the OSPF functionality.

Actually, I did… and exactly the same setup is included in the tested router configurations you get with the DMVPN: from Basics to Scalable Networks webinar. While there are many things that can go wrong with DMVPN, I’ve never heard about asymmetric routing problems, so I started to investigate what’s actually going on.

read more see 5 comments

MPLS/VPN over mGRE strikes again

More than five years after the MPLS/VPN-in-mGRE encapsulation was standardized (add a few more years for the work-in-progress and IETF draft stages), it finally debuted in a mainstream-wannabe IOS release running on ISR routers (15.1(2)T), making it usable for the enterprise WAN designers, who are probably its best target audience.

I was writing about the two conflicting MPLS/VPN over mGRE implementations a while ago and got the impression the Service Providers aren’t too excited about this option. No wonder – most of them use full-blown MPLS backbones, so they have no need for GRE tunnels.

read more see 5 comments

Interesting links (2011-01-09)

Jedi Mind Tricks: HTTP Request Smuggling – an intriguing HTTP vulnerability and the countermeasure using ... what else ... F5.

Flailing IPv6 – up to 13% of IPv6 connections fail, mostly due to broken tunnels. Stop tunneling!

Cisco UCS criticism and FUD: Answered – another great article by @bradhedlund. Assuming he’s not making it up, some competitors must be really desperate.

Understanding Inter-Area Loop Prevention Caveats in OSPF Protocol – a masterpiece by @plapukhov. I thought I knew almost everything there is to know about OSPF. Boy was I wrong.

read more add comment

Campfire: the true story of MPLS

Just before 2010 disappeared, a tweet by my friend Greg @etherealmind Ferro triggered a minor twitstorm. He wrote:

If we had implemented IPv6 ten years ago, would we have MPLS today? I think not.

His tweet contains two major misconceptions:

  • MPLS was designed to implement layer-3 VPN services;
  • We wouldn’t need VPNs if everyone would be using global IPv6 addresses.

I’ll focus on the first one today; the inaccuracy of the second one is obvious to anyone who was asked to implement MPLS VPNs in enterprise networks to ensure end-to-end path separation between departments or users with different security levels.

read more see 5 comments
Sidebar