One of the goals we’re always trying to achieve when developing netlab features is to make the lab topologies as concise as possible1. Among other things, netlab supports numerous ways of describing links between lab devices, allowing you to be as succinct as possible.
A bit of a background first:
The initial videos of the Leaf-and-Spine Fabric Architectures webinar are now public. You can watch the Leaf-and-Spine Fabric Basics, Physical Fabric Design, and Layer-3 Fabrics sections without an ipSpace.net account.
One of the recipes for easy IS-IS deployments claims that you should use only level-2 routing (although most vendors enable level-1 and level-2 routing by default).
What does that mean, and why does it matter? You’ll find the answers in the Optimize Simple IS-IS Deployments lab exercise.
A Thought Leader1 recently published a LinkedIn article comparing IGP and BGP convergence in data center fabrics2. In it, they3 claimed that:
iBGP designs would require route reflectors and additional processing, which could result in slightly slower convergence.
Let’s see whether that claim makes any sense.
TL&DR: No. If you’re building a simple leaf-and-spine fabric, the choice of the routing protocol does not matter (but you already knew that if you read this blog).
As part of the netlab development process, I run almost 200 integration tests on more than 20 platforms (over a dozen operating systems), and the amount of weirdness I discover is unbelievable.
Today’s special: Junos is failing the IS-IS metrics test.
The test is trivial:
The validation process is equally trivial:
Imagine you want to create a simple multi-site network with netlab:
After three and a half years of haggling (the IETF draft that became the RFC was written in May 2021; the original discussions go back to 2013), Nick Buraglio & co managed to persuade pontificators bikeshedding in the v6ops working group that we might need an IPv6 documentation prefix larger than the existing 2001:db8::/32
.
With the new documentation prefix (3fff::/20
) (defined in RFC 9637), there’s absolutely no excuse to use public IPv6 address space in examples anymore.
netlab release 1.9.3 brings these new features:
Other new features include:
A friend of mine recently wrote a nice post explaining how netlab helped him set up a large network topology in a reasonably short timeframe. As expected, his post attracted a wide variety of comments, from “netlab is a gamechanger” (thank you 😎) to “I prefer traditional labs.” Instead of writing a bunch of replies into a walled-garden ecosystem, I decided to address some of those concerns in a public place.
Let’s start with:
Wanted to share this “too weird to believe” SNAFU I found when running integration tests with the Bird routing daemon. It’s irrelevant unless you want Bird to advertise the IPv6 prefix configured on the main loopback interface (lo
) with OSPFv3.
Late last year, I decided to run netlab integration tests with the Bird routing daemon. It passed most baseline netlab OSPFv3 integration tests but failed those that checked the loopback IPv6 prefix advertised by the tested device (test results).
Another year is almost gone, and it’s time for my traditional “I will disappear until mid-January” retreat (also, don’t expect me to read my email until I’m back).
I hope you’ll also be able to disconnect from the crazy pace of the networking world, forget the “AI will make networking engineers obsolete” shenanigans (hint: SDN did not), and focus on your loved ones. I would also like to wish you all the best in 2025!
I will probably get bored sometime in late December, so expect a few new netlab features in early January.
Addy Osmani published an excellent overview of the challenges of AI-assisted coding. They apply equally well to the “AI will generate device configurations for me” or “AI will troubleshoot my network” ideas (ignoring for the moment the impact of the orders-of-magnitude smaller training set), so it’s definitely worth reading.
I particularly liked the “‌AI is like having a very eager junior developer on your team” take, as well as the description of the “70% problem” (AI will get you 70% there, but the last 30% will be frustrating) – a phenomenon perfectly illustrated by the following diagram by Forrest Brazeal:
As much as I love explaining how to use BGP in an optimal way, sometimes we have to do what we know is bad to get the job done. For example, if you have to deal with clueless ISPs who cannot figure out how to use BGP communities, you might be forced to use the Big Hammer of disaggregated prefixes. You can practice how that works in the next BGP lab exercise.
Click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces (or set up your own lab infrastructure). After starting the lab environment, change the directory to policy/b-disaggregate
and execute netlab up.
My Internet Routing Security talk from last year’s DEEP conference (a shorter version of the Internet Routing Security webinar) is now available on YouTube.
Hope you’ll find it useful ;)
A fellow networking engineer recently remarked, “FRRouting automatically selects the correct [IBGP] source interface even when not configured explicitly.”
TL&DR: No, it does not. You were just lucky.
Basics first1. BGP runs over TCP sessions. One of the first things a router does when establishing a BGP session with a configured neighbor is to open a TCP session with the configured neighbor’s IP address.
On December 9th, 2020, I created a new GitHub repository and pushed the first commit of my “I hate creating Vagrantfiles by hand” tool. It could create Vagrantfile and Ansible inventory from a (very rudimentary) network topology and deploy handcrafted device configurations on Cisco IOS and Arista EOS.
When I discovered GitHub Codespaces (thanks to a pointer by Roman Dodin), I did the absolute minimum of research to get netlab up and running in a container to enable Codespaces-based labs (BGP, IS-IS) and netlab examples.
However, if you want to know the behind-the-scenes details, you MUST read the Codespaces for Network Engineers and Educators deep dive by Julio Perez.
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:
Here’s (in a nutshell) how PIC Edge is supposed to work:
A happy netlab user asked for a sample Cisco ASAv topology that would include an inside and an outside router.
We don’t have anything similar in the netlab examples yet, so let’s build a simple topology with two routers, a firewall, and a few hosts.
However, we have to start with a few caveats:
A few weeks ago, Urs Baumann posted a nice example illustrating the power of netlab: a 10-router topology running OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP:
He didn’t post the underlying topology file, so let’s create a simple topology to build something similar.