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.
Contrary to the OSPF world, where we have to use two completely different routing protocols to route IPv4 and IPv6 (unless you believe in the IPv4 address family in OSPFv3), IS-IS provided multi-protocol support from the very early days of its embracement by IETF. Adding IPv6 support was only a matter of a few extra TLVs, but even there, IETF gave us two incompatible ways of making IPv6 work with IS-IS.
Want to know more? You’ll find the details in the Dual-Stack (IPv4+IPv6) IS-IS Routing lab exercise.
Fernando Gont published an Individual Internet Draft (meaning it hasn’t been adopted by any IETF WG yet) describing the Problem Statement about IPv6 Support for Multiple Routers and Multiple Interfaces. It’s so nice to see someone finally acknowledging the full scope of the problem and describing it succinctly. However, I cannot help but point out that:
Anyway, Fernando wraps up his draft with:
We’ll conclude the EVPN designs saga with the “most creative” design promoted by some networking vendors: running an IBGP session (carrying EVPN address family) between loopbacks advertised with EBGP IPv4 address family.
There’s just a tiny gotcha in the above Works Best in PowerPoint diagram. IBGP assumes the BGP neighbors are in the same autonomous system while EBGP assumes they are in different autonomous systems. The usual way out of that OMG, I painted myself into a corner situation is to use BGP local AS functionality on the underlay EBGP session:
You might have an environment where a route reflector (or a route server) has dozens or hundreds of BGP peers. Configuring them by hand is a nightmare; you should either build a decent automation platform or use dynamic BGP neighbors – a feature you can practice in the next 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 session/9-dynamic
and execute netlab up.
Over a decade ago, I created a webinar describing enterprise MPLS/VPN use cases. Surprisingly, some networking engineers still find it useful in the wonderful new world of SD-WAN duct tape, and starting today, you can access it without an ipSpace.net account.
It’s time for another “the vendor IS-IS defaults are all wrong” blog post. Wide IS-IS metrics were standardized in RFC 3784 in June 2004, yet most vendors still use the ancient narrow metrics as the default setting.
Want to know more? The Using IS-IS Metrics lab exercise provides all the gory details.
One of the key arguments against stretched clusters (and similar stupidities) I used in my Disaster Recovery Myths presentation was the SSD read latency versus cross-site round-trip time.
Thanks to Networking Notes, I found a great infographic I can use in my next presentation (bonus points: it also works great in a terminal when fetched with curl) and a site that checks the latency of your web site from various vantage points.
A BGP route server is like a BGP route reflector but for EBGP sessions. In its simplest implementation, it receives BGP updates over EBGP sessions and propagates them over other EBGP sessions without inserting its own AS number in the AS path (more details).
BGP route servers are commonly used on Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), and that’s what you can practice in the BGP Route Server in an Internet Exchange Point 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 session/5-routeserver
and execute netlab up.
James got confused by a statement made by Hannes Gredler in his IS-IS book:
Things behave really badly if the total IGP cost over the tunnel undermines the total topologies’ cost. What happens next is that the tunnel “wraps” around itself, ultimately causing a meltdown of the entire network.
Let’s unpack that, starting with “Why would you need a tunnel?”
While I was busy fixing bugs in the netlab release 1.9.2, other contributors added exciting new features:
Other new features include: