Decades ago there was a trick question on the CCIE exam exploring the intricate relationships between MAC and ARP table. I always understood the explanation for about 10 minutes and then I was back to I knew why that’s true, but now I lost it.

Fast forward 20 years, and we’re still seeing the same challenges, this time in EVPN networks using in-subnet proxy ARP. For more details, read the excellent ARP problems in EVPN article by Dmytro Shypovalov (I understood the problem after reading the article, and now it’s all a blur 🤷‍♂️).

You wouldn’t believe the intricate network designs I created decades ago until I learned that having uninterrupted sleep is worth more than proving I can get the impossible to work (see also: using EBGP instead of IGP in a 4-node data center fabric).

Once I started valuing my free time, I tried to design things to be as simple as possible. However, as my friend Nicola Modena once said, “Consultants must propose new technologies because they must be seen as bringing innovation,” and we all know complexity sells. Go figure.

Almost a decade ago I described a scenario in which a perfectly valid IBGP topology could result in a permanent routing loop. While one wouldn’t expect to see such a scenario in a well designed network, it’s been known for ages¹ that using BGP route reflectors could result in suboptimal forwarding.

Here’s a simple description of how that could happen:

In case you missed it, there’s a new season of Lack of DHCPv6 on Android soap opera on v6ops mailing list. Before going into the juicy details, I wanted to look at the big picture: why would anyone care about lack of DHCPv6 on Android?

The requirements for DHCPv6-based address allocation come primarily from enterprise environments facing legal/compliance/other layer 8-10 reasons to implement policy (are you allowed to use the network), control (we want to decide who uses the network) and attribution (if something bad happens, we want to know who did it).

I’m always amazed when I encounter networking engineers who want to have a fast-converging network using Non-Stop Forwarding (which implies Graceful Restart). It’s even worse than asking for smooth-running heptagonal wheels.

As we discussed in the Fast Failover series, any decent router uses a variety of mechanisms to detect adjacent device failure:

• Physical link failure;
• Routing protocol timeouts;
• Next-hop liveliness checks (BFD, CFM…)

Last week’s update session of the AWS Networking webinar covered two hours worth of new (or not-yet-covered) features, including:

• Transit Gateway Connect functionality (GRE tunnel+BGP between Transit Gateway and in-cloud SD-WAN appliances)
• AWS Private Link
• Intra-VPC static routes that you can use to send inter-subnet traffic to a BYOD security appliance
• IGMPv2 support
• Custom global accelerators
• Assigning whole IP prefixes to VM interfaces

The recordings have already been published, either as independent videos or integrated with the existing materials. Enjoy ;)

I totally understand that entities relying on sponsors have to become creative while promoting whatever theirs sponsors want to sell, but in my opinion this is a bridge too far:

[…] explore how Gluware aims to democratize automation; that is, get you quick wins around common tasks such as configuration changes and OS updates.

Democratizing automation? Because it’s authoritarian now? By providing the abilities like configuration changes and OS updates that have been available in network management tools like CiscoWorks or SolarWinds for ages?

You know what’s really hard when automating existing networks? Figuring out how to simplify them to the point where it makes sense to automate them. Will any shrink-wrapped GUI product solve that? Of course not.

We all know that you have to use an AS number between 64512 and 65535 for private BGP autonomous systems, right? Well, we’re all wrong – the high end of the range is 65534, and Chris Parker wrote a nice blog post explaining the reasons behind that change.

After explaining the basics of (network) names, addresses and routes, I wasted a few minutes of everyone’s time discussing the theoretical aspects of layered addressing, and then got back to practical issues like address scopes, namespaces, and address provisioning.

The video ends with a simple (and unappreciated) truth: if you have a point-to-point link between two nodes you don’t need data-link-layer addresses. The consequences of that fact are left as an exercise for the viewer (or you can wait till the next video ;)

Patrik Schindler sent me an interesting comment to my Open-Source DMVPN Alternatives blog post:

Welcome to the build-or-buy dilemma, router edition.

Etienne-Victor Depasquale sent me a pointer to an interesting NANOG discussion: why would we need Segment Routing. It’s well worth reading the whole thread (until it devolves into “that is not how MPLS works” arguments), which happens to be somewhat aligned with my thinking:

• SR-MPLS makes perfect sense (excluding the migration-from-LDP fun)
• SRv6 (in whatever incantation) is mostly a vendor ploy to sell new chipsets.

Enjoy!

In the Graceful Restart 101 blog post, I promised to discuss the ugly parts of this concept in a follow-up post. It turns out we’ll need more than one; today, we’ll focus on other control plane protocols in an access network scenario.

Imagine an access router with multiple uplinks serving a bunch of non-redundantly-connected customers:

Most of the public cloud training seems focused on developers. No surprise there, they are the usual beachhead public cloud services need to get into large organizations. Unfortunately, once the production applications start getting deployed into public cloud infrastructure, someone has to take over operations, and that’s where the fun starts.

For whatever reason, there aren’t that many resources helping the infrastructure operations teams understand how to deal with this weird new world, at least according to the feedback Jawed left on Azure Networking webinar:

Even though you need plenty of traditional networking constructs to deploy a complex application stack in a public cloud (packet filters, firewalls, load balancers, VPN, BGP…), once you start digging deep into the bowels of public cloud virtual networking, you’ll find out it’s significantly different from the traditional Ethernet+IP implementations common in enterprise data centers.

For an overview of the differences watch the Public Cloud Networking Is Different video (part of Introduction to Cloud Computing webinar), for more details start with AWS Networking 101 and Azure Networking 101 blog posts, and continue with corresponding cloud networking webinars.

Boris Lazarov sent me an excellent question:

Does it make sense and are there any inherent problems from design perspective to use the underlay not only for transport of overlay packets, but also for some services. For example: VMWare cluster, vMotion, VXLAN traffic, and some basic infrastructure services that are prerequisite for the rest (DNS).

Before answering it, let’s define some terminology which will inevitably lead us to the it’s tunnels all the way down endstate.