ipng/ipng.ch
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Replace all post_url with Hugo ref blocks

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Pim van Pelt
2024-08-05 01:43:55 +02:00
parent c1f1775c91
commit a2f10236a3
56 changed files with 221 additions and 241 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
content/articles/2024-06-22-vpp-ospf-2.md
View File

@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ transit networks between routers really start adding up.
I explored two potential solutions to this problem:
1. **[[Babel]({% post_url 2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1 %})]** can use IPv6 nexthops for IPv4 destinations -
1. **[[Babel]({{< ref "2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1" >}})]** can use IPv6 nexthops for IPv4 destinations -
which is _super_ useful because it would allow me to retire all of the IPv4 /31 point to point
networks between my routers.
1. **[[OSPFv3]({% post_url 2024-04-06-vpp-ospf %})]** makes it difficult to use IPv6 nexthops for
1. **[[OSPFv3]({{< ref "2024-04-06-vpp-ospf" >}})]** makes it difficult to use IPv6 nexthops for
IPv4 destinations, but in a discussion with the Bird Users mailinglist, we found a way: by reusing
a single IPv4 loopback address on adjacent interfaces
@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ interface `loop0`.
{{< image width="100px" float="left" src="/assets/freebsd-vpp/brain.png" alt="brain" >}}
Planning and applying this is straight forward, but there's one detail I should
mention. In my [[previous article]({% post_url 2024-04-06-vpp-ospf %})] I asked myself a question:
mention. In my [[previous article]({{< ref "2024-04-06-vpp-ospf" >}})] I asked myself a question:
would it be better to leave the addresses unconfigured in Linux, or would it be better to make the
Linux Control Plane plugin carry forward the borrowed addresses? In the end, I decided to _not_ copy
them forward. VPP will be aware of the addresses, but Linux will only carry them on the `loop0`
@ -464,8 +464,7 @@ of this:
OSPFv2, cost will remain consistent; and also within the routers that speak OSPFv3, it will be
consistent. Between them, routes will be learned, but cost will be roughly meaningless.
I upgrade another link, between router `chgtg0` and `ddln0` at my [[colo]({% post_url
2022-02-24-colo %})], which is connected via a 10G EoMPLS link from a local telco called Solnet. The
I upgrade another link, between router `chgtg0` and `ddln0` at my [[colo]({{< ref "2022-02-24-colo" >}})], which is connected via a 10G EoMPLS link from a local telco called Solnet. The
colo, similar to IPng's office, has two redundant 10G uplinks, so if things were to fall apart, I
can always quickly shutdown the offending link (thereby removing OSPFv3 adjacencies), and traffic
will reroute. I have created two islands of OSPFv3, drawn in <span