Category: BGP

I got this design improvement suggestion after publishing When Is BGP No Better than OSPF blog post:

Putting all the leafs in the same ASN and filtering routes sent down to the leafs (sending just a default) are potential enhancements that make BGP a nice option.

Tony Przygienda quickly wrote a one-line rebuttal: “unless links break ;-)”

Using EBGP instead of an IGP (OSPF or IS-IS) in leaf-and-spine data center fabrics is becoming a best practice (read: thing to do when you have no clue what you’re doing).

The usual argument defending this design choice is “BGP scales better than OSPF or IS-IS”. That’s usually true (see also: Internet), and so far, EBGP is the only reasonable choice in very large leaf-and-spine fabrics… but does it really scale better than a link-state IGP in smaller fabrics?

As discussed in a previous blog post, IETF designed EVPN to be next-generation BGP-based VPN technology providing scalable layer-2 and layer-3 VPN functionality. EVPN was initially designed to be used with MPLS data plane and was later extended to use numerous data plane encapsulations, VXLAN being the most common one.

Design Requirements

Like any other BGP-based solution, EVPN uses BGP to transport endpoint reachability information (customer MAC and IP addresses and prefixes, flooding trees, and multi-attached segments), and relies on an underlying routing protocol to provide BGP next-hop reachability information.

BGP is the kitchen-sink of networking protocols, right? Whatever control-plane information you need to transport around, you can do it with BGP… including the battleship coordinates carried in BGP communities.

On the more serious front, it's nice to see at least some ISPs still care enough about the stability of the global Internet to use BGP route flap dampening.

Networking engineers familiar with Junos love to tell me how easy it is to configure and operate IBGP EVPN overlay on top of EBGP IP underlay. Krzysztof Szarkowicz was kind enough to send me the (probably) simplest possible configuration (here’s another one by Alexander Grigorenko)

My BGP in EVPN-Based Data Center Fabrics blog post generated numerous comments from engineers disagreeing with my views on using IBGP-over-EBGP.

As usual, there were three kinds of comments:

EVPN is one of the major reasons we’re seeing BGP used in small and mid-sized data center fabrics. In theory, EVPN is just a BGP address family and shouldn’t impact your BGP design. However, suboptimal implementations might invalidate that assumption.

I've described a few EVPN-related BGP gotchas in BGP in EVPN-Based Data Center Fabrics, a section of Using BGP in Data Center Leaf-and-Spine Fabrics article.

It’s interesting how the same pundits who loudly complain about the complexities of BGP (and how it will be dead any time soon and replaced by an SDN miracle) also praise the beauties of intent-based networking… without realizing that the hated BGP route selection process represents one of the first failures of intent-based approach to networking.

Let’s start with some definitions. There are two ways to get a job done by someone else:

Every now and then someone looks at a few recent BGP incidents (from fat fingers to more dubious ones) and says “we need a better BGP”.

It’s like being unable to cope with your kids or your team members because you don’t have the guts to tell them NO and trying to solve the problem by implementing new procedures and rules.

Like anything designed on a few napkins BGP has its limit. They’re well known, and most of them have to do with trusting your neighbors instead of checking what they tell you.

Two weeks ago we discussed whether it makes sense to use BGP as the routing protocol in a data center fabric. Today we’ll tackle three additional design challenges:

• Should you use IBGP or EBGP?
• When should you run BGP on the spine switches?
• Should every leaf switch have a different AS number or should they share the same AS number?

A while ago I helped a large enterprise redesign their data center fabric. They did a wonderful job optimizing their infrastructure, so all they really needed were two switches in each location.

Some vendors couldn’t fathom that. One of them proposed to build a “future-proof” (and twice as expensive) leaf-and-spine fabric with two leaves and two spines. On top of that they proposed to use EBGP as the only routing protocol because draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc – a clear case of missing the customer needs.

Omer asked a pretty common question about BFD on one of my blog posts (slightly reworded):

Would you still use BFD even if you have a direct router-to-router physical link without L2 transport in the middle to detect if there is some kind of software failure on the other side?

Sander Steffann quickly replied:

One of my readers sent me an interesting DMVPN routing question. He has a design with a single DMVPN tunnel with two hubs (a primary and a backup hub), running BGP between hubs and spokes and IBGP session between hubs over a dedicated inter-hub link (he doesn’t want the hub-to-hub traffic to go over DMVPN).

Here's (approximately) what he's trying to do:

In case you’re not familiar with RFC 1925, Rule 5 states:

It is always possible to agglutinate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases, this is a bad idea.

Most routing protocols are a perfect demonstration of this rule.

One of the perks of my online courses is the lifetime access to course Slack team, and you’d amazed by the variety of questions asked there. Not so long ago I got one on BGP timers:

The BGP timers I’m using in my network are 5 and 15 seconds, and I am not sure if it's a good practice to reduce them even more.

You should always ask yourself this set of questions before tweaking a nerd knob: