Category:  IP routing

A few weeks ago I got into an interesting discussion about the potential harm caused by unnumbered IPv4/IPv6 interfaces.

Ignoring for the moment the vendor-specific or media-specific implementation details, these two arguments usually pop up in the first 100 milliseconds (assuming engineers involved in the discussion have some hands-on operational experience):

One of my readers sent me this question after listening to the podcast with Douglas Comer:

Professor Comer mentioned that IP choose a network attachment address model over an endpoint model because of scalability. He said if you did endpoint addressing it wouldn’t scale. I remember reading a bunch of your blog posts about CNLP (I hope I’m remembering the right acronym) and I believe you liked endpoint addressing better than network attachment point addressing.

As always, the answer is “it depends” (aka “we’re both right” ;).

SD-WAN is all the rage these days (at least according to software-defined pundits), but networking engineers still build DMVPN networks, even though they are supposedly impossibly-hard-to-configure Rube Goldberg machinery.

To be honest, DMVPN is not the easiest technology Cisco ever developed, and there are plenty of gotchas, including the problem of default routing in Phase 2/3 DMVPN networks.

A friend of mine sent me an interesting problem:

I noticed recently that my IOS routers aren't sending ICMP (unreachable; frag needed) messages in response to too-big IPv4 multicast packets with DF-bit set. They're just dropping these packets silently, breaking PMTUD.

Unfortunately, that’s not a bug but a FAD (Functions-as-Designed).

With the advent of layer-3 leaf-and-spine data center fabrics, it became (almost) possible to build pure layer-3-only data center networks… if only the networking vendors would do the very last step and make every server-to-ToR interface a layer-3 interface. Cumulus decided to do just that.

Ethan Banks recently wrote a nice blog post detailing the benefits and drawbacks of traditional routing protocols and comparing them with their SD-WAN counterparts.

While I agree with everything he wrote, the comparison between the two isn’t exactly fair – it’s a bit like trying to cut the cheese with a chainsaw and complaining about the resulting waste.

At least a dozen engineers sent me emails or tweets mentioning Project Calico in the last few weeks – obviously the project is getting some real traction, so it was high time to look at what it’s all about.

TL&DR: Project Calico is yet another virtual networking implementation that’s a perfect fit for a particular use case, but falters when encountering the morass of edge cases.

Hank left a lovely comment on my Rearchitecting L3-Only Networks blog post:

What you describe is literally intra-area routing in CLNS.

He’s absolutely right (and I admitted as much during my IPv6 Microsegmentation presentations @ Troopers 15).

John Jackson wrote an interesting comment on my Rearchitecting L3-Only Networks blog post:

What the host has configured for its default gateway doesn't really matter, correct? Because the default gateway in traditional L2 access networks really isn't about the gateway's IP address, but the gateway's MAC address. The destination IP address in the packet header is always the end destination IP address, never the default gateway.

He totally got the idea, however there are a few minor details to consider.

One of the responses I got on my “What is Layer-2” post was

Ivan, are you saying to use L3 switches everywhere with /31 on the switch ports and the servers/workstation?

While that solution would work (and I know a few people who are using it with reasonable success), it’s nothing more than creative use of existing routing paradigms; we need something better.

I’m constantly ranting against large layer-2 domains; recently going as far as saying “we don’t really need all that stuff.” Unfortunately, the IP+Ethernet mentality is so deeply ingrained in every networking engineer’s mind that we rarely ever stop to question its validity.

Let’s fix that and start with the fundamental question: What is Layer-2?

One of the networking engineers using my ExpertExpress to validate their network design had an interesting problem: he was building a multi-tenant VLAN-based private cloud architecture with each tenant having multiple subnets, and wanted to route within the tenant network as close to the VMs as possible (in the ToR switch).

He was using Nexus 5600 as the ToR switch, and although there’s conflicting information on the number of VRFs supported by that switch (verified topology: 25 VRFs, verified maximum: 1000 VRFs, configuration guide: 64 VRFs), he thought 25 VRFs (tenant routing domains) might be enough.

One of my readers is struggling with the aftermath of marketing gimmicks:

We will implement a new network soon, and we're discussing P-routers versus regular routers versus switches. I'm looking for arguments to go one way or the other.

TL&DR: there’s no difference between router and L3 switch.

While the industry press deliberates the disaggregation of Arista and Cisco, and Juniper’s new CEO, Juniper launched a virtual version of its vMX router, which is supposed to have up to 160 Gbps of throughput (as compared to 10 Gbps offered by Vyatta 5600 and Cisco CSR). Can Juniper really deliver on that promise?

One of my readers sent me an interesting challenge:

We have two MPLS providers sending us default routes and it seems like whenever we have problem with SP1 our failover is not happening properly and actually we have to go in manually and influence our traffic to forward via another path.

Welcome to the wondrous world of byzantine routing failures ;)