Category: BGP

Gabriel sent me a pointer to a blog post by Rudolph Bott describing the details of BGP Unnumbered implementations on Nokia, Juniper, and Bird.

Even more interestingly, Rudolph points out the elephant I completely missed: RFC 8950 refers to RFC 2545, which requires a GUA IPv6 next hop in BGP updates (well, it uses the SHALL wording, which usually means “troubles ahead”). What do you do if you’re running EBGP on an interface with no global IPv6 addresses? As expected, vendors do different things, resulting in another fun interoperability exercise.

Finally, there’s RFC 7404 that advocates LLA-only infrastructure links, so we might find the answer there. Nope; it doesn’t even acknowledge the problem in the Caveats section.

For even more information, read the Unnumbered IPv4 Interfaces and BGP in Data Center Fabrics blog posts.

Did you know you could use the neighbor local-as BGP functionality to fake an iBGP session between different autonomous systems? I knew Cisco IOS supported that monstrosity for ages (supposedly “to merge two ISPs that have different AS numbers”) and added the appropriate tweaks¹ into netlab when I added the BGP local-as support in release 1.3.1. Someone couldn’t resist pushing us down that slippery slope, and we ended with IBGP local-as implemented on 18 platforms (almost a dozen network operating systems).

I even wrote a related integration test, and all our implementations passed it until I asked myself a simple question: “But does it work?” and the number of correct implementations that passed the test without warnings dropped to zero.

The Dynamic BGP Peers lab exercise gave you the opportunity to build a large-scale environment in which routers having an approved source IP addresses (usually matching an ACL/prefix list) can connect to a BGP route reflector or route server.

In a more controlled environment, you’d want to define BGP neighbors on the BGP RR/RS but not waste CPU cycles trying to establish BGP sessions with unreachable neighbors. Welcome to the world of passive BGP sessions.

Click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces (or set up your own lab infrastructure). After starting the lab environment, change the directory to session/8-passive and execute netlab up.

When I asked my readers what they would consider a good use case for EBGP multihop (thanks again to everyone who answered!), many suggested running BGP across a layer-3 firewall (Running BGP across a “transparent” (bump-in-the-wire) firewall is trivial). I turned that suggestion into a lab exercise in which you have to establish an EBGP multihop session across a “firewall” simulated by a Linux host.

If you haven’t set up your own lab infrastructure, click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces. After starting your codespace, change the directory to basic/e-ebgp-multihop and execute netlab up.

I got this question from Paul:

Have you ever seen a BGP peer in the “Connect” state? In 20 years, I have never been able to see or reproduce this state, nor any mention in a debug/log. I am starting to believe that all the documentation is BS, and this does not exist.

The BGP Finite State Machine (FSM) (at least the one defined in RFC 4271 and amended in RFC 9687) is “a bit” hard to grasp but the basics haven’t changed from the ancient days of RFC 1771:

When a BGP router cannot fit the whole BGP table into its forwarding table (FIB), we often use inbound filters to limit the amount of information the device keeps in its BGP table. That’s usually a waste of resources:

• The BGP neighbor has to send information about all prefixes in its BGP table
• The device with an inbound filter wastes additional CPU cycles to drop many incoming updates.

Wouldn’t it be better for the device with an inbound filter to push that filter to its BGP neighbors?

Whenever I was explaining how one could build EBGP-only data center fabrics, someone would inevitably ask, “But could you do that with IBGP?”

TL&DR: Of course, but that does not mean you should.

Anyway, leaving behind the land of sane designs, let’s trot down the rabbit trail of IBGP-only networks.

As much as I love explaining how to use BGP in an optimal way, sometimes we have to do what we know is bad to get the job done. For example, if you have to deal with clueless ISPs who cannot figure out how to use BGP communities, you might be forced to use the Big Hammer of disaggregated prefixes. You can practice how that works in the next BGP lab exercise.

Click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces (or set up your own lab infrastructure). After starting the lab environment, change the directory to policy/b-disaggregate and execute netlab up.

My Internet Routing Security talk from last year’s DEEP conference (a shorter version of the Internet Routing Security webinar) is now available on YouTube.

Hope you’ll find it useful ;)

A fellow networking engineer recently remarked, “FRRouting automatically selects the correct [IBGP] source interface even when not configured explicitly.”

TL&DR: No, it does not. You were just lucky.

Basics first¹. BGP runs over TCP sessions. One of the first things a router does when establishing a BGP session with a configured neighbor is to open a TCP session with the configured neighbor’s IP address.

You might have an environment where a route reflector (or a route server) has dozens or hundreds of BGP peers. Configuring them by hand is a nightmare; you should either build a decent automation platform or use dynamic BGP neighbors – a feature you can practice in the next lab exercise.

Click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces (or set up your own lab infrastructure). After starting the lab environment, change the directory to session/9-dynamic and execute netlab up.

A BGP route server is like a BGP route reflector but for EBGP sessions. In its simplest implementation, it receives BGP updates over EBGP sessions and propagates them over other EBGP sessions without inserting its own AS number in the AS path (more details).

BGP route servers are commonly used on Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), and that’s what you can practice in the BGP Route Server in an Internet Exchange Point lab exercise.

Click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces (or set up your own lab infrastructure). After starting the lab environment, change the directory to session/5-routeserver and execute netlab up.

In previous BGP policy lab exercises, we covered several mechanisms you can use to ensure your autonomous system is not leaking transit routes (because bad things happen when you do, particularly when your upstream ISP is clueless).

As you probably know by now, there’s always more than one way to get something done with BGP. Today, we’ll explore how you can use the NO_EXPORT community to filter transit routes.

Click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces (or set up your own lab infrastructure). After starting the lab environment, change the directory to policy/d-no-export and execute netlab up.

I spent a few days in a beautiful place with suboptimal Internet connectivity. The only thing I could do whenever I got bored (without waiting for the Internet gnomes to hand-carry the packets across the mountain passes) was to fix the BGP labs on a Ubuntu VM running on my MacBook Air (hint: it all works).

Big things first. I added validation to these labs:

• MD5 Passwords and GTSM
• Use BGP Timers and BFD to Speed Up BGP Convergence
• BGP Route Aggregation
• EBGP Sessions over IPv6 LLA Interfaces
• Establish an IBGP Session
• Build a Transit Network with IBGP
• Use BGP Route Reflectors
• Using No-Export Community to Filter Transit Routes

In the previous BGP load balancing lab exercise, I described the BGP Link Bandwidth attribute and how you can use it on EBGP sessions. This lab moves the unequal-cost load balancing into your network; we’ll use the BGP Link Bandwidth attribute on IBGP sessions.