Category: BGP

When I described the need to turn off the BGP AS-path loop prevention logic in scenarios where a Service Provider expects a customer to reuse the same AS number across multiple sites, someone quipped, “but that should be fixed by the Service Provider, not offloaded to the customer.”

Not surprisingly, there’s a nerd knob for that (AS override), and you can practice it in the next BGP lab exercise: Fix AS-Path in Environments Reusing BGP AS Numbers.

FRR or (pre-NVUE) Cumulus Linux are the best bets if you want to run BGP labs in a resource-constrained environment like your laptop or a small public cloud instance. However, they both behave a bit differently from what one might expect from a networking device, including:

• Interfaces are created through standard Linux tools;
• You have to start the FRR management CLI from the Linux shell;
• If you need a routing daemon (for example, the BGP daemon), you must enable it in the FRR configuration file and restart FRR.

A new lab exercise covers these intricate details and will help you get fluent in configuring BGP on FRR or Cumulus Linux virtual machines or containers.

A networking engineer with a picture-perfect implementation of a dual-homed enterprise site using BGP communities according to RFC 1998 to select primary- and backup uplinks contacted me because they experienced unacceptably long failover times.

They measured the failover times caused by the primary uplink loss and figured out it takes more than five minutes to reestablish Internet connectivity to their site.

When I published the Bidirectional Route Redistribution lab exercise, some readers were quick to point out that you’ll probably have to reuse the same AS number across multiple sites in a real-life MPLS/VPN deployment. That’s what you can practice in today’s lab exercise – an MPLS/VPN service provider allocated the same BGP AS number to all your sites and expects you to deal with the aftermath.

It’s that time of the year when we create unreachable goals and make empty promises to ourselves (or others) that we subconsciously know we’ll fail.

I tried to make that process a bit more structured and create external storage for my lab ideas – I started publishing more details on future BGP lab scenarios. The lab descriptions contain a high-level overview of the challenge and the lab topology; the details will be filled in later.

Want to know what’s coming in 2024? Check out the Upcoming Labs page of the BGP Labs project.

Here’s a challenge in case you get bored during the Christmas break: merge two networks running BGP (two autonomous systems) without changing anything but the configurations of the routers connecting them (the red BGP session in the diagram). I won’t give you any hints; you can discuss it in the comments or a GitHub discussion.

Hopefully, you won’t have to deal with something similar in real life, but then we know that crazy requirements trump good designs any day of the week.

A previous BGP lab focused on the customer side of BGP communities: adding them to BGP updates to influence upstream ISP behavior. Today’s lab focuses on the ISP side of the equation: using BGP communities in a routing policy to implement RFC 1998-style behavior.

In the previous BGP labs, we built a network with two adjacent BGP routers and a larger transit network using IBGP. Now let’s make our transit network scalable with BGP route reflectors, this time using a slightly larger network:

Kristijan Taskovski asked an interesting question related to my BGP AS-prepending lab:

I’ve never personally done this on the net but….wouldn’t the BGP origin code also work with moving one’s ingress traffic similarly to AS PATH?

TL&DR: Sort of, but not exactly. Also, just because you can climb up ropes using shoelaces instead of jumars doesn’t mean you should.

Let’s deal with the moving traffic bit first.

Martijn Van Overbeek left this comment on my LinkedIn post announcing the BGP MED lab:

It might be fixed, but I can recall in the past that there was a lot of quirkiness in multi-vendor environments, especially in how different vendors use it and deal with the setting when the attribute does exist or does not have to exist.

TL&DR: He’s right. It has been fixed (mostly), but the nerd knobs never went away.

In case you’re wondering about the root cause, it was the vagueness of RFC 1771. Now for the full story ;)

It’s hard to influence the behavior of someone with strong opinions (just ask any parent with a screaming toddler), and trying to persuade an upstream ISP not to send the traffic over a backup link is no exception – sometimes even AS path prepending is not a strong enough argument.

An easy solution to this problem was proposed in 1990s – what if we could attach some extra attributes (called communities just to confuse everyone) to BGP updates and use them to tell adjacent autonomous systems to lower their BGP local preference? You can practice doing that in the Attach BGP Communities to Outgoing BGP Updates lab exercise.

TL&DR: Yes.

Starting with RFC 4271, Route Resolvability Condition:

• A route without an outgoing interface is resolvable if its next hop is resolvable without recursively using the same route.
• A route with an outgoing interface is always considered resolvable.
• BGP routes can be resolved through routes with just a next hop or an outgoing interface.

In the previous lab, you learned how to use BGP Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED) to influence incoming traffic flow. Unfortunately, MED works only with parallel links to the same network. In a typical Redundant Internet Connectivity scenario, you want to have links to two ISPs, so you need a bigger hammer: AS Path Prepending.

A friend of mine sent me an interesting question along these lines:

We all know that in OSPF, the router ID is any 32-bit number, not necessarily an IP address of an interface. The only requirement is that it must be unique throughout the OSPF domain. However, I’ve always wondered what the role of BGP router ID is. RFC 4271 says it should be set to an IP address assigned to that BGP speaker, but where do we use it?

Also, he observed somewhat confusing behavior in the wild:

Take two routers and configure the same BGP identifier on both. Cisco IOS will not establish a session, while IOS XR and Junos will.

I decided to take the challenge and dug deep into the bowels of RFC 4271 and RFC 6286. Here’s what I brought back from that rabbit hole:

After checking what routers do when they receive a TCP SYN packet from an unknown source, I couldn’t resist checking how they cope with TCP SYN packets with too-low TTL when using TTL security, formally known as The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) defined in RFC 5082.

TL&DR: Not bad: most devices I managed to test did a decent job.