Category: service providers
A reader of my blog was “blessed” with hands-on experience with SD-WAN offered by large service providers. Based on that experience he sent me his views on whether that makes sense. Enjoy ;)
We all have less-than-stellar opinion on service providers and their offerings. Its well known that those services are expensive and usually lacking quality, experience, or simply, knowledge. This applies to regular MPLS/BGP techniques as to - currently, the new challenge - SD-WAN.
I cannot understand the usefulness of L2 services. I think that the preference for L2 services has its origin in the enterprise world (pushed by well known $vendors) while ISPs tend to work at Layer 3 (L3) only, even if they are urged to offer L2 services by their customers.
Some (but not all) ISPs are really good at offering IP transport services with fixed endpoints. Some Service Providers are good at offering per-tenant IP routing services required by MPLS/VPN, but unfortunately many of them simply don’t have the skills needed to integrate with enterprise routing environments.
Still basically the same old debate from 25 years ago that experienced Network Architects and Engineers understood during technology changes; "Do you architect your network around an application(s) or do you architect your application(s) around your network"
I would change that to “the same meaningless debate”. Networking is infrastructure; it’s time we grow up and get used to it.
Dan sent me the following question:
I had another read of the ‘Building IPv6 Service Provider Networks’ material and can see the PE routers use site local ipv6 addressing. I’m about to build another small service provider setup and wondered: would you actually use site local for PE loopbacks etc, or would you use ULA or global addressing? I’m thinking ULA would be better from a security point of view?
TR&DR summary: Don’t do that.
Almost a year ago rumors started circulating about a Deutsche Telekom pilot network utilizing some crazy new optic technology. In spring I’ve heard about them using NFV and Tail-f NCS for service provisioning … but it took a few more months till we got the first glimpses into their architecture.
TL&DR summary: Good design always beats bleeding-edge technologies
Andrew is struggling with MPLS/VPN providers and sent me the following question:
Is "carriers carrier" a real service? I'm having a bit of an issue at the moment with too many MPLS providers […] Carrier’s carrier would be an answer to many of them, but none of the carriers admit to being able to do this, so I was wondering if it's simply that I'm speaking to the wrong people, or whether they really don't...
Short answer: I have yet to see this particular unicorn roaming the meadows of reality.
During a recent ExpertExpress engagement I got an interesting question: “could we do per-customer policing and shaping on an MX-80 if we want to offer VPLS services and have Q-in-Q encapsulation on customer-facing links?” As I have preciously little Junos/MX knowledge, it was time for the classic “I’ll get back to you” reply and some heavy research.
You probably know how hard it is to find in-depth information on an unknown platform running unfamiliar software. Fortunately, Doug Hanks (@douglashanksjr) sent me a review copy of his new Juniper MX Series book a while ago. It was time for some serious reading.
I knew Geoff Huston would have a great presentation, but his QoS presentation was even better than I expected. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he said, but every vendor peddling QoS should be forced to listen to his explanation of the underlying problems and kludgy solutions first.
Short summary: everything works as expected on ASR 1K running IOS XE 3.7.
I won’t spend any time on the “perfectly fine” part (Greg Ferro had a lot to say about that in the early Packet Pushers podcasts), but focus on the fundamental difference between the two: the use case.
Instead of drinking beer and lab-testing vodka during the PLNOG party I enjoyed DHCPv6 discussions with Tomasz Mrugalski, the “master-of-last-resort” for the ISC’s DHCPv6 server. I mentioned my favorite DHCPv6 relay problem (relay redundancy) and while we immediately agreed I’m right (from the academic perspective), he brought up an interesting question – is this really an operational problem?
Did you rush to try OSPF Loop Free Alternate on a Cisco 7200 after reading my LFA blog post ... and disappointedly discovered that it only works on Cisco 7600? The reason is simple: while LFA does add feasible-successor-like behavior to OSPF, its primary mission is to improve RIB-to-FIB convergence time.
One of the areas where IPv6 sorely lacks feature parity with IPv4 is user authentication and source IP spoofing prevention in large-scale Carrier Ethernet networks. Metro Ethernet switches from numerous vendors offer all the IPv4 features a service provider needs to build a secure and reliable access network where the users can’t intercept other users’ traffic or spoof source IP addresses, and where it’s always possible to identify the end customer from an IPv4 address – a mandatory requirement in many countries. Unfortunately, you won’t find most of these features in those few Metro Ethernet switches that support IPv6.
The flooding attacks (or mishaps) on large layer-2 networks are well known and there are ample means to protect the network against them, for example storm control available on Cisco’s switches. Now imagine you change the source MAC address of every packet sent to a perfectly valid unicast destination.
Just got this question from one of my Service Provider friends: “If I am building a new MPLS backbone from scratch, should I design it with Carrier’s Carrier in mind?” Of course you should ... after all, the CsC functionality has almost no impact on the MPLS backbone (apart from introducing an extra label in the label stack).