SPONSORED FEATURE: We might all be working for the same organization, even on the same infrastructure. …
Tighter IT/OT Integration Starts With Zero Touch was written by Joseph Martins at The Next Platform.
In a previous BGP lab exercise, I described how an Internet Service Provider could run BGP with a customer without the customer having a public BGP AS number. The only drawback of that approach: the private BGP AS number gets into the AS path, and everyone else on the Internet starts giving you dirty looks (or drops your prefixes).
Let’s fix that. Most BGP implementations have some remove private AS functionality that scrubs AS paths during outgoing update processing. You can practice it in the Remove Private BGP AS Numbers from the AS Path lab exercise.
In a previous BGP lab exercise, I described how an Internet Service Provider could run BGP with a customer without the customer having a public BGP AS number. The only drawback of that approach: the private BGP AS number gets into the AS path, and everyone else on the Internet starts giving you dirty looks (or drops your prefixes).
Let’s fix that. Most BGP implementations have some remove private AS functionality that scrubs AS paths during outgoing update processing. You can practice it in the Remove Private BGP AS Numbers from the AS Path lab exercise.
Here is a history question for you: How many IT suppliers who do a reasonable portion of their business in the commercial IT sector – and a lot of that in the datacenter – have ever broken through the $100 billion barrier? …
Nvidia Will Be The Next IT Giant To Break $100 Billion In Sales was written by Timothy Prickett Morgan at The Next Platform.
Spoiler alert!
A lot of neat things have just been added to the Arm Neoverse datacenter compute roadmap, but one of them is not a datacenter-class, discrete GPU accelerator. …
Arm Neoverse Roadmap Brings CPU Designs, But No Big Fat GPU was written by Timothy Prickett Morgan at The Next Platform.
Kurt Wauters sent me an interesting challenge: how do we do rollbacks based on customer requests? Here’s a typical scenario:
You might have deployed a change that works perfectly fine from a network perspective but broke a customer application (for example, due to undocumented usage), so you must be able to return to the previous state even if everything works. Everybody says you need to “roll forward” (improve your change so it works), but you don’t always have that luxury and might need to take a step back. So, change tracking is essential.
He’s right: the undo functionality we take for granted in consumer software (for example, Microsoft Word) has totally spoiled us.
Kurt Wauters sent me an interesting challenge: how do we do rollbacks based on customer requests? Here’s a typical scenario:
You might have deployed a change that works perfectly fine from a network perspective but broke a customer application (for example, due to undocumented usage), so you must be able to return to the previous state even if everything works. Everybody says you need to “roll forward” (improve your change so it works), but you don’t always have that luxury and might need to take a step back. So, change tracking is essential.
He’s right: the undo functionality we take for granted in consumer software (for example, Microsoft Word) has totally spoiled us.
For a lot of state universities in the United States, and their equivalent political organizations of regions or provinces in other nations across the globe, it is a lot easier to find extremely interested undergraduate and graduate students who want to contribute to the font of knowledge in high performance computing than it is to find the budget to build a top-notch supercomputer of reasonable scale. …
OSC Blends Intel HBM CPUs And Nvidia HBM GPUs For “Cardinal” Supercomputer was written by Timothy Prickett Morgan at The Next Platform.
There are many articles on BFD. It is well known that BFD has the following advantages over routing protocol hellos/keepalives:
What does light weight mean, though? Does it mean that the packets are smaller? Let’s compare a BFD packet to an OSPF Hello. Starting with the OSPF Hello:
Frame 269: 114 bytes on wire (912 bits), 114 bytes captured (912 bits) on interface ens192, id 1
Ethernet II, Src: 00:50:56:ad:8d:3c, Dst: 01:00:5e:00:00:05
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: 203.0.113.0, Dst: 224.0.0.5
Open Shortest Path First
OSPF Header
Version: 2
Message Type: Hello Packet (1)
Packet Length: 48
Source OSPF Router: 192.168.128.223
Area ID: 0.0.0.0 (Backbone)
Checksum: 0x7193 [correct]
Auth Type: Null (0)
Auth Data (none): 0000000000000000
OSPF Hello Packet
OSPF LLS Data Block
There’s 114 bytes on the wire consisting of:
I got this question after publishing the BGP Session Templates lab exercise:
Would you apply BGP route maps with a peer/policy template or directly to a BGP neighbor? Of course, it depends; however, I believe in using a template for neighbors with the same general parameters and being more specific per neighbor when it comes to route manipulation.
As my reader already pointed out, the correct answer is It Depends, now let’s dig into the details ;)
I got this question after publishing the BGP Session Templates lab exercise:
Would you apply BGP route maps with a peer/policy template or directly to a BGP neighbor? Of course, it depends; however, I believe in using a template for neighbors with the same general parameters and being more specific per neighbor when it comes to route manipulation.
As my reader already pointed out, the correct answer is It Depends, now let’s dig into the details ;)
https://codingpackets.com/blog/manage-vyos-devices-with-saltstack
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.
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.