A while ago I got an interesting challenge from one of my readers: “I would like to attend a few of your webinars, but the problem I have is that I’m interested in most of them. Is there something we can do?” After a few e-mails, we nailed down the concept I had been playing with for quite a while: yearly subscription package. It gives you three unlimited access to all live webinars and year-long access to all the materials and all the recordings I ever made for a fixed price. You can find a detailed description, list of all recordings and list of all available materials on my web site.

After I made the “duct tape of networking” joke, I quickly became a GRE lover (according to @Neelixx – another Twitter account lost in the mists of time). Jokes aside, let’s see where it makes sense to use GRE.

I was listening to the HP Virtual Connect (VC) PPP podcast recently and got the impression that HP VC is a weirdly convoluted product. I started wondering what exactly they were thinking when they were designing it ... and had the epiphany when Ken Henault took a step back and explained the history leading to the current complexity (listen to the Packet Pushers podcast to get the whole story)

Last week I ran numerous lab tests while preparing router configurations for the Building IPv6 Service Provider Core webinar. One of the fantastic test results: DHCPv6 relaying works correctly on a 7200 running 12.2(33)SRE2, even when the client requests IA_PD option.

A while ago I wrote about IPv6 addressing challenges some ISPs face and recommended what I thought was agreed-upon practice of giving residential customers a /64 or a /56. Not long after, I received an e-mail from an IPv6 guru saying:

[Worse] is when people start claiming to have expertise in IPv6 and promulgate this idea of residential /56s and /64s as immutable fact. The reality is that it is becoming more and more apparent that /56s and especially /64s to residential customers are going to be harmful to future innovation in IPv6.

There are two reasons one would bundle parallel Ethernet links into a port channel (official term is Link Aggregation Group):

• Transforming parallel links into a single logical link bypasses Spanning Tree Protocol loop avoidance logic; all links belonging to the port channel can be active at the same time (see also: Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation basics).
• Load sharing across parallel links in a port channel increases the total bandwidth available between adjacent L2 switches or between routers/hosts and switches.

Ethan Banks wrote an excellent explanation of traditional port channel caveats (proving that 1+1 sometimes does not equal 2); things get way worse when you start using Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation due to hot potato switching (the switch tries to forward packets toward destination MAC address as soon as possible) used by all MLAG implementations I’m familiar with.

When IESG decided to adopt SIP, not TUBA (TCP/UDP over CLNP) as IPv6, a lot of people were mightily disappointed and some of them still propagate the myths how CLNP with its per-node addresses would fare better than IPv6 with its per-interface addresses (you might find the writings of John Day on this topic interesting and Petr Lapukhov is also advocating this view in his comments).

These views are correct when considering small-scale (intra-network) multihoming, but unfortunately wrong when it comes to Internet-scale multihoming, where CLNP with TCP on top of it would be as bad as IPv4 or IPv6 is (routing table explosion due to multihoming is also one of the topics of my Upcoming Internet Challenges webinar).

Paulie, a frustrated enterprise IPv6 early adopter summarized his pains in a comment to my “Small-site multihoming in IPv6: mission impossible?” post saying “[IPv6/IPv6 support] is a mess and depressing” and asked “Is it too late to go to CLNS?”

Quite a few old-timers (I’m definitely one of them) lament the glory days of VMS, DECnet Phase V and CLNP, but while CLNP was a viable alternative for the next-generation IP in 1993, it would fare worse than IPv6 today.

We all knew MARS is becoming a dead end (Cisco first removed third-party support and then stopped developing the product), now it’s official. MARS is dead.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, this is the third security product (after WAF and XML Gateway) Cisco has killed this year. Are they implementing borderless networks or trimming down to core competences while preparing for onslaught of market adjacencies?

You’re probably familiar with the April fat fingers incident in which Chinanet (AS 23724) originated ~37.000 prefixes for about 15 minutes. The incident made it into the annual report of US Congress’ U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (page 243 of this PDF) and the media was more than happy to pick it up (Andree Toonk has a whole list of links in his blog post). We might never know whether the misleading statements in the report were intentional or just a result of clueless technical advisors, but the facts are far away from what they claim: