Category: BGP

Even though I questioned the wisdom of writing your own network programming applications, I know I would immediately jump into those waters if I were 20 years younger. If you’re like my younger self, you might want to keep a few guidelines in mind.

You did read my blog post on ThousandEyes, didn’t you? What I forgot to mention was that they have this cool API that allows you to extract measurement data (including BGP topology) from their system. Can we do something cool with that?

A group of researches presented an “interesting” result @ IETF 87: migrating from IBGP full mesh to IBGP reflectors can introduce temporary forwarding loops. OMG, really?

Don’t panic, the world is not about to become a Vogon hyperspace bypass. Let’s put their results in perspective.

One of the holy grails of data center SDN evangelists is controller-driven traffic engineering (throwing more leaf-and-spine bandwidth at the problem might be cheaper, but definitely not sexier). Obviously they don’t call it traffic engineering as they don’t want to scare their audience with MPLS TE nightmares, but the idea is the same.

Interestingly, you don’t need new technologies to get as close to that holy grail as you wish; Petr Lapukhov got there with a 20 year old technology – BGP.

TL&DR Summary: Yes (if you’re clumsy enough).

A while ago I read Impact of Graceful IGP Operations on BGP – an article that described how changes in IGP topology result in temporary (or sometimes even permanent) forwarding loops in networks using BGP route reflectors.

Is the problem real? Yes, it is. Could you generate a BGP RR topology that results in a permanent forwarding loop? Yes. It’s not that hard.

One of the Expert Express sessions focused on an MPLS/VPN-based WAN network using OSPF as the routing protocol. The customer wanted to add DMVPN-based backup links and planned to retain OSPF as the routing protocol. Not surprisingly, the initial design had all sorts of unexpectedly complex kludges (see the case study for more details).

Having a really smart engineer on the other end of the WebEx call, I had to ask a single question: “Why don’t you use BGP everywhere” and after a short pause got back the expected reply “wow… now it all makes sense.”

VMware gave me early access to NSX hands-on lab a few days prior to VMworld 2013. The lab was meant to demonstrate the basics of NSX, from VXLAN encapsulation to cross-subnet flooding, but I quickly veered off the beaten path and started playing with routing protocols in NSX Edge appliances.

Have you ever tried to implement a large-scale DMVPN or MPLS/VPN network using BGP as the routing protocol? If you tried to stitch more than ~1000 sites together you’re well aware of all the pain caused by a small range of private AS numbers defined in RFC 1930. We can kludge our way around the limitation by reusing the same AS number on multiple sites (and using allowas-in when we need full routing information on every site), but such a design clearly sucks.

The next small step in my MPLS/VPN update project: EIBGP load balancing – why is it useful, how it works, why can’t you use it without full-blown MPLS/VPN, and what the alternatives are.

Loads of niche features got crammed into (MP)BGP and MPLS since I wrote my MPLS books, most of them trying to tweak BGP (a scalable and reasonably slow routing protocol dealing with behemoth tables) to behave more like an IGP would.

It looks like we’ll never see updated versions of the books, so I’ll try to cover the new features with short videos. The first one on the list: BGP Best External – a mechanism that speeds up MP-IBGP convergence in primary/backup PE-CE scenarios using EBGP.

Arnold sent me an interesting challenge: he’s using two MPLS/VPN providers, with most sites being connected to both providers. He’d like to load balance the inter-site traffic across all PE-CE links – an easy task if you’re using RIP, OSPF or EIGRP as the PE-CE routing protocol, but he happens to be using BGP.

One of my readers sent me an interesting question:

Are you aware of any studies looking at the effectiveness of IPv6 address allocation policies? I'm specifically interested in the affects of allocation policy on RIB/FIB sizes.

Well, we haven’t solved a single BGP-inflating problem with IPv6, so expect the IPv6 BGP table to be similar to IPv4 BGP table once IPv6 is widely deployed.

A while ago I got an interesting question:

Let's say that due to circumstances outside of your control, you must have stretched data center subnets... What is the best method to get these subnets into OSPF? Should they share a common area at each data center or should each data center utilize a separate area for the same subnet?

Assuming someone hasn’t sprinkled the application willy-nilly across the two data centers, it’s best if the data center edge routers advertise subnets used by the applications as type-2 external routes, ensuring one data center is always the primary entry point for a specific subnet. Getting the same results with BGP routing in Internet is a much tougher challenge.

Matthew Stone encountered another unintended consequence of full Internet routing in a VRF design: the TCAM on his 6500 was 80% utilized even though he has the new Sup modules with one million IPv4 routes.

A closer look revealed the first clue: L3 forwarding resources on a Cat6500 are shared between IPv4 routes and MPLS labels (don’t know about you, but I was not aware of that) and half the entries were consumed by MPLS labels:

We published the first draft of the BGP Operations and Security document almost a year ago. In the meantime, the authors and Merike Kaeo presented the draft at RIPE and IETF meetings and collected literally tons of feedback (well documented in change logs) ... and finally the draft was adopted as IETF opsec workgroup document and republished under a new name.

We would never get this far without relentless Jerome Durand who did most of the editing heavy lifting, persistent nudging from Gunter Van de Velde and gracious help of Merike Kaeo. Thank you all!