Category: MPLS

You can use SR-MPLS, MPLS-TE, or an SDN controller to build virtual circuits (label-switched paths) across the network core. The controller can push the LSPs into network devices with PCEP, BGP-LU, or some sort of NETCONF/RESTCONF trickery.

Unfortunately, you’re only half done once you have installed the LSPs. You still have to persuade the network devices to use them. Welcome to the confusing world of traffic steering explored in the Loopback as a Service blog post by Dmytro Shypovalov.

This blog post discusses an old arcane question that has been nagging me from the bottom of my Inbox for almost exactly four years. Please skip it if it sounds like Latin to you, but if you happen to be one of those readers who know what I’m talking about, I’d appreciate your comments.

Terminology first:

• Prefix Independent Convergence allows entries in the forwarding table to point to shared next hops (or next-hop groups), reducing the FIB update bottleneck when changing the next hop for a large number of prefixes (for example, when dealing with a core link failure). More details in the initial blog post and PIC applicability to fast reroute.
• PIC Edge (as defined by vendor marketing) is the ability to switch to a backup CE route advertised to a backup PE router before the network convergence is complete.

Here’s (in a nutshell) how PIC Edge is supposed to work:

Urs Baumann brought me a nice surprise last weekend. He opened a GitHub issue saying, “MPLS works on Arista cEOS containers in release 4.31.2F” and asking whether we could enable netlab to configure MPLS on cEOS containers.

After a few configuration tweaks and a batch of integration tests later, I had the results: everything worked. You can use MPLS on Arista cEOS with netlab release 1.9.0 (right now @ 1.9.0-dev2), and I’ll be able to create MPLS labs running in GitHub Codespaces in the not-too-distant future.

Dmytro Shypovalov wrote a fantastic article explaining the basics of MPLS-based Segment Routing. It’s pretty much equivalent to everything I ever wrote about SR-MPLS but in a much nicer package. Definitely a must-read.

Brad Casemore published an interesting analysis explaining why Cisco should accept being a mature company with mature products (yeah, you have to subscribe to view it). I always loved reading his articles, but unfortunately, this time, he briefly ventured into the “I don’t think this word means what you think it means” territory:

MPLS worked – and it still works – but it provided optimal value in an earlier time when the center of gravity was not the cloud. The cloud challenged the efficacy of MPLS, and it wasn’t long before SD-WAN, cloud connects, and interconnects […] represented an implacable threat to a status quo that had once seemed unassailable.

The second part of the paragraph is (almost) true, but it had nothing to do with MPLS.

A long-time friend sent me this question:

I would like your advice or a reference to a security framework I must consider when building a green field backbone in SR/MPLS.

Before going into the details, keep in mind that the core SR/MPLS functionality is not much different than the traditional MPLS:

Bruce Davie continues documenting the tradeoffs we had to make in networking, this time with Was MPLS Traffic Engineering Worthwhile? I found this bit particularly familiar:

It wasn’t hard to make a theoretical argument that MPLS-TE could improve network performance and average link utilization, by moving traffic from congested links to uncongested ones. The hard part was proving that it would actually do a better job in practice than the more traditional methods such as using link weights and multipath routing to achieve the same ends.

One of my readers successfully deployed LDPv6 in their production network:

We are using LDPv6 since we started using MPLS with IPv6 because I was used to OSPF/OSPFv3 in dual-stack deployments, and it simply worked.

Not everyone seems to be sharing his enthusiasm:

Now some consultants tell me that they know no-one else that is using LDPv6. According to them “everyone” is using 6PE and the future of LDPv6 is not certain.

Henk Smit left a wonderful comment discussing various scalability aspects of SR-MPLS. Let’s go through the points he made:

When you have a thousand routers in your networks, you can put all of them in one (IS-IS) area. Maybe with 2k routers as well. But when you have several thousand routers, you want to use areas, if only to limit the blast-radius.

Absolutely agree, and as RFC 3439 explained in more eloquent terms than I ever could:

Whenever I compare MPLS-based Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) with it’s distant IPv6-based cousin (SRv6), someone invariably mentions the specter of large label stacks that some hardware cannot handle, for example:

Do you think vendors current supported label max stack might be an issue when trying to route a packet from source using Adj-SIDs on relatively big sized (and meshed) cores? Many seem to be proposing to use SRv6 to overcome this.

I’d dare to guess that more hardware supports MPLS with decent label stacks than SRv6, and if I’ve learned anything from my chats with Laurent Vanbever, it’s that it sometimes takes surprisingly little to push the traffic into the right direction. You do need a controller that can figure out what that little push is and where to apply it though.

Most networking engineers immediately think about VXLAN and data center switches when they hear about EVPN. While that’s the most hyped use case, EVPN standardization started in 2012 as a layer-2 VPN solution on top of MPLS transport trying to merge the best of VPLS and MPLS/VPN worlds.

If you want to understand how any technology works, and what its quirks are, you have to know how it was designed to be used. In this blog post we’ll start that journey exploring the basics of EVPN used in a simple MLPS network with three PE-routers:

Here’s an interesting question randomly appearing in my Twitter feed:

If you had a greenfield network, would you choose SR-MPLS, or SRv6? And why?

TL&DR: SR-MPLS, assuming you’re building a network providing end-to-end connectivity between hardware edge devices.

Now for the why part of the question:

One of my readers asked for my opinion about this question…

… and I promised something longer than 280 characters.

Jeff Tantsura left me tantalizing hint after reading the BGP Labeled Unicast on Cisco IOS blog post:

Read carefully “Relationship between SAFI-4 and SAFI-1 Routes” section in RFC 8277

The start of that section doesn’t look promising (and it gets worse):

It is possible that a BGP speaker will receive both a SAFI-1¹ route for prefix P and a SAFI-4² route for prefix P. Different implementations treat this situation in different ways.

Now for the details:

netlab release 1.2.0 adds full-blown MPLS and MPLS/VPN support:

• VRF definitions and layer-3 VRFs
• VRF-aware OSPF, IS-IS and BGP
• Traditional MPLS with LDP (SR-MPLS was already available)
• BGP Labeled Unicast
• MPLS/VPN: VPNv4 and VPNv6 address family support

It’s never been easier to build full-blown MPLS/VPN labs ;)… if you’re OK with using Cisco IOS or Arista EOS. Please feel free to submit a PR to add support for other platforms.

You might want to start with the VRF tutorial to see how simple it is to define VRFs, and follow the installation guide to set up your lab – if you’re semi-fluent in Linux, the easiest option would be to run Arista cEOS.