Category: networking fundamentals

Now that we know a bit more about addresses in a networking stack (read the whole series) and why CLNP uses node addresses while TCP/IP uses interface addresses, let’s see how they solve common addressing problems like finding adjacent nodes.

Let’s start with the elephant in the room: how do you know whether you can reach a host you want to communicate with directly? In the following diagram, how does A know whether B is sitting next to it?

Now and then, someone rediscovers that IS-IS does not run on top of CLNP or IP and claims that, therefore, it must be a layer-2 protocol. Even vendors’ documentation is not immune.

Interestingly, most routing protocols span the whole seven layers of the OSI stack, with some layers implemented internally and others offloaded to other standardized protocols.

The fun question about network layer addresses is: are we addressing nodes or individual node interfaces? On the data link layer, we never had this issue because it was obvious that a data link layer endpoint is an interface, so each interface should have a unique data link layer address.

Interestingly, that’s not the case on transparent bridges. Even though they have multiple interfaces, the whole bridge has a single MAC address, so one could claim we’re addressing nodes connected to a single data link layer. The IEEE standard is unambiguous: in every relevant diagram, the MAC address sits on top of multiple interfaces because the MAC address belongs to the control plane.

I mentioned that you don’t need node addresses when dealing with only two entities. Now and then, someone tries to extend this concept and suggests that the network layer addressing isn’t needed if the solution is local. For instance, if we have a solution that is supposed to run only on a single Ethernet segment, we don’t need network layer addressing because we already have data link layer addresses required for Ethernet to work (see also: ATAoE).

Too often in the past, an overly ingenious engineer or programmer got the idea to simplify everyone’s life and use the data link layer addresses as the ultimate addresses of individual nodes. They would then put the transport layer on top of that to get reliable packet transport. Finally, put whatever application on top of the transport layer. Problem solved.

This LinkedIn snippet just came in from the someone is not exactly right on the Internet department:

Unlike IGP protocols, BGP is not dependent on a single type of metric to choose the best path.

EIGRP is an immediate counterexample that brought the above quote to my attention, but it’s worth exploring the topic in more detail.

Last week, we discussed Fibre Channel addressing. This time, we’ll focus on data link layer technologies used in multi-access networks: Ethernet, Token Ring, FDDI, and other local area- or Wi-Fi technologies.

The first local area networks (LANs) ran on a physical multi-access medium. The first one (original Ethernet) started as a thick coaxial cable¹ that you had to drill into to connect a transceiver to the cable core.

Later versions of Ethernet used thinner cables with connectors that you put together to build whole network segments out of pieces of cable. However, even in that case, we were dealing with a single multi-access physical network – disconnecting a cable would bring down the whole network.

Whenever we talk about LAN data-link-layer addressing, most engineers automatically switch to the “must be like Ethernet” mentality, assuming all data-link-layer LAN framing must somehow resemble Ethernet frames.

That makes no sense on point-to-point links. As explained in Early Data-Link Layer Addressing article, you don’t need layer-2 addresses on a point-to-point link between two layer-3 devices. Interestingly, there is one LAN technology (that I’m aware of) that got data link addressing right: Fibre Channel (FC).

After covering the theoretical part of network addressing (part 2, part 3), let’s go into some practical examples. I’ll start with data link layer and then move on to networking and higher layers.

The earliest data link implementations that were not point-to-point links were multi-drop links and I mentioned them in the networking challenges part of the webinar. Initially, we implemented multi-drop links with modems, but even today you can see multi-drop in satellite communications, Wi-Fi, or in cable modems.

After discussing names, addresses and routes, and the various addresses we might need in a networking stack, we’re ready to tackle an interesting comment made by a Twitter user as a reply to my Why Is Source Address Validation Still a Problem? blog post:

Maybe the question we should be asking is why there is a source address in the packet header at all.

Most consumers of network services expect a two-way communication – you send some stuff to another node providing an interesting service, and you usually expect to get some stuff back. So far so good. Now for the fun part: how does the server know where to send the stuff back to? There are two possible answers¹:

After discussing names, addresses and routes, it’s time for the next question: what kinds of addresses do we need to make things work?

End-users (clients) are usually interested in a single thing: they want to reach the service they want to use. They don’t care about nodes, links, or anything else.

End-users might want to use friendly service names, but we already know we need addresses to make things work. We need application level service identifiers – something that identifies the services that the clients want to reach.

It always helps to figure out the challenges of a problem you’re planning to solve, and to have a well-defined terminology. This blog post will mention a few challenges we might encounter while addressing various layers of the networking stack, from data-link layer and all the way up to the application layer, and introduce the concepts of names, addresses and routes.

According to Martin Fowler, one of the best quotes I found on the topic originally came from Phil Karlton:

Dip Singh published an excellent primer on communication fundamentals including:

• Waves: frequency, amplitude, wavelength, phase
• Composite signals, frequency domain and Fourier transform
• Bandwidth, fundamental and harmonic frequency
• Decibels in a nutshell
• Transmission impairments: attenuation, distortion, noise
• Principles of modern communications: Nyquist theorem, Shannon’s law, bit and baud rate
• Line encoding techniques, quadrature methods (including QPSK and QAM)

Even if you don’t care about layer-1 technologies you MUST read it to get at least a basic appreciation of why stuff you’re using to read this blog post works.

After introducing the routing protocols and explaining the basics of link-state routing it was time for implementation considerations including:

• Collecting local endpoint reachability information
• Finding neighbors and exchanging the collected information (hint: a link-state topology database is just a distributed key-value store)
• Running the SPF algorithm (including partial SPF details) and installing the results

The Routing Protocols Overview part of How Networks Really Work webinar introduced the concepts of distance-vector and link-state routing protocols. Next step: the basics of link-state routing protocols.

The simplest way to implement layer-3 forwarding in a network fabric is to offload it to an external device¹, be it a WAN edge router, a firewall, a load balancer, or any other network appliance.