WAN router IP address change blamed for global Microsoft 365 outage(theregister.com)
theregister.com
WAN router IP address change blamed for global Microsoft 365 outage
https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/30/wan_router_ip_address_change/
67 comments
This was a rather interesting event. In general, changing the IP address (even the loopback address) shouldn't have caused it from the BGP perspective. For example, if you were to change the IP address of BGP enabled router that has multiple BGP sessions, all other routers tore down the sessions to it, and withdrew the prefixes. BGP reconverge events take time. However, less than this took (90+ minutes and then a few more hours until __full__ recovery).
This seems like one of the events in which they changed IP on Route Reflector routers that were pretty busy, which would cause reconvergence and CPU spikes for all routers that it had sessions with. Also, there was a lot of volatility, as part of which re-advertisements were happening continuously. They also attempted rollback, which caused reverse operation, which triggered reconvergence. The other scenario is doing this change on the SDN controller, which affected all other routers.
More details: https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/microsoft-outage-analysis-... https://www.thousandeyes.com/resources/na-microsoft-outage-a...
This seems like one of the events in which they changed IP on Route Reflector routers that were pretty busy, which would cause reconvergence and CPU spikes for all routers that it had sessions with. Also, there was a lot of volatility, as part of which re-advertisements were happening continuously. They also attempted rollback, which caused reverse operation, which triggered reconvergence. The other scenario is doing this change on the SDN controller, which affected all other routers.
More details: https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/microsoft-outage-analysis-... https://www.thousandeyes.com/resources/na-microsoft-outage-a...
I feel like they intended to /ADD/ a new loopback IP and in the process accidentally removed the existing one and replaced because I think anyone intentionally changing the loopback IP knows it's going to reset all bgp sessions. I think more modern cisco/arista platforms now "secondary" by default and perhaps that is what bit them?
It seems that in modern large scale systems networking continues to be one of the few things were a a seemingly small and inconsequential change can cause entire cloud providers and highly redundant systems to go down. It makes sense as networking is the fabric connecting all systems together but each time an incident like this occurs I'm reminded of just how important networking is.
Network engineers and the people handling network ops always amaze me.
Network engineers and the people handling network ops always amaze me.
IME Network engineers put too much faith in vendors. They think "the vendor says this is a resilient virtual chassis so it can't break", rather than thinking "ok, if this breaks what happens"
A crash affecting both sides of a "resilient" virtual chassis I had to work with took off a major broadcast last year (it was a last minute favour I was doing, and I rerouted to a tertiary route in a couple of minutes).
Meanwhile I ran a rather large event going out to some hundred million listeners via two crappy £300 switches which were completely independent of each other, into two independent routers, running via two separate systems (one on a UPS, one on mains). If one of them broke the other one was completely independent and the broadcast would have continued just fine.
As far as I am concerned, that is far better than a virtual chassis.
A crash affecting both sides of a "resilient" virtual chassis I had to work with took off a major broadcast last year (it was a last minute favour I was doing, and I rerouted to a tertiary route in a couple of minutes).
Meanwhile I ran a rather large event going out to some hundred million listeners via two crappy £300 switches which were completely independent of each other, into two independent routers, running via two separate systems (one on a UPS, one on mains). If one of them broke the other one was completely independent and the broadcast would have continued just fine.
As far as I am concerned, that is far better than a virtual chassis.
This may be true of enterprise network engineers but I’ve worked across a lot of very large networks (telco, not cloud) and we never ever trust the vendor.
The kind of bugs that I’ve read about in errata notes over the years is wild and truly unpredictable.
The kind of bugs that I’ve read about in errata notes over the years is wild and truly unpredictable.
Enterprise is definitely different - network guys need multiple customers to develop the vendor skepticism. I used to get into brutal internal fights with network directors over whatever bullshit the Cisco salesman said offhand that was treated as though it was delivered by Moses off the mountain. One guy tried to get me fired because I offended an SE. lol.
I worked on systems and platforms at the time, and we were more cynical even about vendors we liked.
I worked on systems and platforms at the time, and we were more cynical even about vendors we liked.
It wouldn't be the first time that your redundant vendors end up sharing a conduit for a bunch of fiber somewhere. Guess where that backhoe will start digging?
Redundant vendors in the GP’s context referred to using multiple router vendors, eg Cisco and Juniper.
Using multiple connectivity vendors doesn’t guarantee path diversity. Demanding fibre maps and ensuring that your connectivity has separate points of entry into the building, doesn’t cross outside the building, and validating with your DC provider that your cross connects aren’t crossing either, guaranteed path diversity / redundancy.
Using multiple connectivity vendors doesn’t guarantee path diversity. Demanding fibre maps and ensuring that your connectivity has separate points of entry into the building, doesn’t cross outside the building, and validating with your DC provider that your cross connects aren’t crossing either, guaranteed path diversity / redundancy.
Its a bit of both. Internationally I find I can't trust the network maps of the connectivity vendors and I'm better going for two separate companies (ones which are part of different subsea cables -- e.g. Wiocc on Eassy and Safaricom on TEAMS).
Of course I had one failure in Delhi which the provider blamed on 5 separate fibre cuts. Long distance circuits can run via areas where they can sustain multiple cuts across large amounts of area (regional flooding is a good one), and fixing isn't instant. This can be mittigated a little, but you still end up with circuit issues -- I had two fibre runs into Shetland the other month. Frist one was cut, c'est la vie. Second one was cut, had to use a very limited RF link. There's only so much you can do.
On the other hand I've just been given a BT Openreach plan which lists any pinch points of a new RO2 EAD install, I can see the closest the two get during transport is about 400m (aside from the end point of course, and experience has taught me I can trust it.
Of course I had one failure in Delhi which the provider blamed on 5 separate fibre cuts. Long distance circuits can run via areas where they can sustain multiple cuts across large amounts of area (regional flooding is a good one), and fixing isn't instant. This can be mittigated a little, but you still end up with circuit issues -- I had two fibre runs into Shetland the other month. Frist one was cut, c'est la vie. Second one was cut, had to use a very limited RF link. There's only so much you can do.
On the other hand I've just been given a BT Openreach plan which lists any pinch points of a new RO2 EAD install, I can see the closest the two get during transport is about 400m (aside from the end point of course, and experience has taught me I can trust it.
The GP was clearly talking about whole networks, not just the hardware vendors, if I read that different than the GP intended I'll wait for their correction.
One of the problems that I've seen in practice that with the degree of virtualization at play that it has at the same time become much more easy to in principle be guaranteed 100% independence and in practice it has become much harder to verify that this is the case because of all of the abstraction layers underneath the topology. One of my customers specializes in software that allows one to make such guarantees and this is a non-trivial problem, to put it mildly, especially when the situation becomes more dynamic due to outages from various causes.
One of the problems that I've seen in practice that with the degree of virtualization at play that it has at the same time become much more easy to in principle be guaranteed 100% independence and in practice it has become much harder to verify that this is the case because of all of the abstraction layers underneath the topology. One of my customers specializes in software that allows one to make such guarantees and this is a non-trivial problem, to put it mildly, especially when the situation becomes more dynamic due to outages from various causes.
In London I can literally follow the map from manhole to manhole, exchange to exchange. It's dark fibre so I can flash a light down it and a colleague can see it emerge at the other end. Now it's possible they don't follow the map and still make it to the other end, but it's pretty unlikely.
Sometimes of course you have to make judgement calls. From one location near Slough I have a BT EAD2 back to my building a few miles away. I know the route into my building, I can see the cables with my own eyes going in different directions. BT tell me which exchanges those cables goto, and provide me with a map into the field at a 1000:1 scale showing the cables coming in down a shared path. Sure it's possible BT are lying, but it's unlikely. Only use that location sporadically, and when I do it's a managed location, so I can accept the risk of a digger on the ground.
Another location in Norfolk, two BTNet lines, going to two different exchanges. They meet at the edge of the farm and go up the same trunk. That's fine, I can physically control the single point of failure there too, although if peering between BT and my network fails then I'm screwed, but I have a separate pinnacom circuit in a crunch.
Now obviously some failure become far harder to mitigate. A failure of the Thames Barrier would cause a hell of a lot of problems in Docklands, I'm not sure if any circuits in/out of places like telehouse, sovhouse, etc will remain. Cross that bridge etc. Whether my electricity provider will remain with a loss of the internet is another matter, so then it comes down to how much oil there in in the generators, and the generators of any repeaters on the routes of my network.
However the much easier to avoid is the problem of some shitty stacked switch the salesman says will always work.
Sometimes of course you have to make judgement calls. From one location near Slough I have a BT EAD2 back to my building a few miles away. I know the route into my building, I can see the cables with my own eyes going in different directions. BT tell me which exchanges those cables goto, and provide me with a map into the field at a 1000:1 scale showing the cables coming in down a shared path. Sure it's possible BT are lying, but it's unlikely. Only use that location sporadically, and when I do it's a managed location, so I can accept the risk of a digger on the ground.
Another location in Norfolk, two BTNet lines, going to two different exchanges. They meet at the edge of the farm and go up the same trunk. That's fine, I can physically control the single point of failure there too, although if peering between BT and my network fails then I'm screwed, but I have a separate pinnacom circuit in a crunch.
Now obviously some failure become far harder to mitigate. A failure of the Thames Barrier would cause a hell of a lot of problems in Docklands, I'm not sure if any circuits in/out of places like telehouse, sovhouse, etc will remain. Cross that bridge etc. Whether my electricity provider will remain with a loss of the internet is another matter, so then it comes down to how much oil there in in the generators, and the generators of any repeaters on the routes of my network.
However the much easier to avoid is the problem of some shitty stacked switch the salesman says will always work.
> One of the problems that I've seen in practice that with the degree of virtualization at play
If you’re buying SDN WAN solutions, you get what you get.
If you’re buying specific paths, you get what you pay for.
If you’re buying SDN WAN solutions, you get what you get.
If you’re buying specific paths, you get what you pay for.
Sounds like a great place for a specialized insurance company to be the middle man
I have to trust the dark fibre map provided, but I know exactly which way it ran, manhole to manhole. I had three cores, they shared the first 20 metres to the manhole, it's unlikely there would be a backhoe digging underneath the police van and pile of scaffolding that was parked in the shared conduit.
After that it went on different paths to three different buildings, which from each of those was then routed independently.
We take physical resilience seriously, as it isn't network engineers that do that part of the infrastructure. Enterprise network engineers then throw it all away by stacking their switches into a single point of logical failure.
(Still had a non-IP backup, but sometimes that breaks too -- just in different ways than the IP)
After that it went on different paths to three different buildings, which from each of those was then routed independently.
We take physical resilience seriously, as it isn't network engineers that do that part of the infrastructure. Enterprise network engineers then throw it all away by stacking their switches into a single point of logical failure.
(Still had a non-IP backup, but sometimes that breaks too -- just in different ways than the IP)
The network is a single point of failure, even if the network itself is redundant!
One possible way to fix that is to replace the network with multiple independent networks. It's really expensive though.
Yes, exactly. Most really mission critical places do exactly that.
The first time I saw something like that put into practice was when an experiment in the oil and gas industry that was scheduled to run for years delivered their network design. On the runtime cost of the experiment the extra network wasn't a big deal, but a service interruption would have been and would have caused them to have to restart the whole thing from scratch. It's more than a decade ago and I forgot what the exact context was but the whole thing was fascinating from a redundancy perspective as well as the degree of thinking that had gone into the risk assessment. Those guys really knew their business. Also the amount of data that experiment was expected to generated was off the scale. Multiple petabytes, which at the time (a decade ago or so) was a non trivial amount of data.
The first time I saw something like that put into practice was when an experiment in the oil and gas industry that was scheduled to run for years delivered their network design. On the runtime cost of the experiment the extra network wasn't a big deal, but a service interruption would have been and would have caused them to have to restart the whole thing from scratch. It's more than a decade ago and I forgot what the exact context was but the whole thing was fascinating from a redundancy perspective as well as the degree of thinking that had gone into the risk assessment. Those guys really knew their business. Also the amount of data that experiment was expected to generated was off the scale. Multiple petabytes, which at the time (a decade ago or so) was a non trivial amount of data.
yes, instead of one network, many independent networks which then can get connected together, forming a network of networks, some kind of inter-network!
..oh wait. see what I did? ahhAHAHA
..oh wait. see what I did? ahhAHAHA
This doesn't really make sense. The modern WAN operates on multiple independent networks - SD-WANs, multiple transit providers, fiber-ring MPLS, EVPN etc. If you propagate a bad network change throughout your autonomous system or backbone you can still have an outage on your hands.
My point is that you could apply the same principle internally; have two backbones managed by separate teams instead of one.
That still doesn't make sense though. In the context of a WAN, a backbone is an external network. It routes between your POPs. At any rate, the margin of error and complexity in having two separate backbones networks managed by two separate teams would likely result in more network issues not less. The whole point in having an AS is having a coherent routing policy.
The parent never said multiple networks was easier to implement.
In fact it could easily 2x the cost for the same level of quality, which is why it's almost unheard of for cloud.
In fact it could easily 2x the cost for the same level of quality, which is why it's almost unheard of for cloud.
The parent was stating that two networks would be better but its none done because of costs. And that's complete nonsense.
The fact that it's more difficult and complex to have two separate teams manage two separate networks means it's more prone to error and misconfiguration. The reason it's not done has nothing do with financial costs but rather because it makes no sense, for the very fact I just mentioned.
The fact that it's more difficult and complex to have two separate teams manage two separate networks means it's more prone to error and misconfiguration. The reason it's not done has nothing do with financial costs but rather because it makes no sense, for the very fact I just mentioned.
Two end to end networks would be more reliable.
Like two independent internets spanning from your server to my laptop.
Two completely isolated end to end transports.
That's what OP meant when they said you could make it more reliable by having a redundant network. It's just prohibitively expensive.
Then if one internet goes down in any way I talk to you over the other. That's a fairly straightforward fallback algorithm to implement.
Like two independent internets spanning from your server to my laptop.
Two completely isolated end to end transports.
That's what OP meant when they said you could make it more reliable by having a redundant network. It's just prohibitively expensive.
Then if one internet goes down in any way I talk to you over the other. That's a fairly straightforward fallback algorithm to implement.
Actually I have seen a setup that was quite close to this. Two separate networks, one of them was completely isolated from another, didn’t have Internet access and used a separate set of network equipment. On top of that, the building itself had two entrances - one for the boss and another one for the personnel. You physically couldn’t get from one part of the building to another. It didn’t help the boss though - he was blown up in his car one day. Fun times.
You're talking like multihoming doesn't work. Sure there are cases where bugs or bad configs can propagate across ASes but most of the time you can survive if one provider goes down.
And that's exactly where the whole "have two backbones managed by separate teams instead of one" stops. If someone pushes out an incorrect network config to the end box then all that "let's have two of everything" becomes completely worthless. And as far as multihoming everything and having every single box on the network act as router, unless you are running a CDN of some sort, really makes zero sense. You seem to be arguing that adding more complexity will automatically result in better reliability.
Having, uh, had bad things happen with router configuration I feel for them.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-outage-on-july-17-202...
https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-outage-on-july-17-202...
It does seem like network configuration remains rather manual compared to other large scale systems that include more automation.
In Microsoft's case, the remediation is not to put in place higher level systems to safely accomplish the goal of the command. Instead:
- "We have blocked highly impactful commands from getting executed on the devices (Completed)"
- "We will require all command execution on the devices to follow safe change guidelines (Estimated completion: February 2023)"
Requiring commands to follow guidelines sounds suspiciously like they're requiring network ops not to break things.
In Microsoft's case, the remediation is not to put in place higher level systems to safely accomplish the goal of the command. Instead:
- "We have blocked highly impactful commands from getting executed on the devices (Completed)"
- "We will require all command execution on the devices to follow safe change guidelines (Estimated completion: February 2023)"
Requiring commands to follow guidelines sounds suspiciously like they're requiring network ops not to break things.
That's the norm in network ops. Automated testing is pretty much impossible, easy rollback may be possible depending on exactly what was screwed, but not always.
Take this for example, looks like the problem was an unplanned recalculation of routing tables. That's not going to be the case on a small scale test network, and rolling back won't help, indeed in this case it likely would cause more problems.
Take this for example, looks like the problem was an unplanned recalculation of routing tables. That's not going to be the case on a small scale test network, and rolling back won't help, indeed in this case it likely would cause more problems.
One of the reasons I got out of network engineering was how frequently the work I was required to do would cause unintended consequences. You can do all your due diligence, get your work blessed by vendor support, and still get blown up by a bug or undocumented behaviors on a regular basis. The conspiratorial part of my brain says these network device makers intentionally provide unreliable software and terrible documentation to bolster their support contract profits. I was just the guy typing in the commands and getting all the blame.
I remember the first time I got access to an employers production Cisco router. It’s pretty scary how easy it is to majorly fuck something up.
There isn’t a concept of a transaction or a rollback. You just enter a command, press enter and it’s live.
To counter this we’d write all the commands we planned on executing and peer review it. Nothing was to be done “on the fly” (at least in theory)
In short, coming from a developer perspective with ample version controls and gated releases… networking is a very wild ride.
There isn’t a concept of a transaction or a rollback. You just enter a command, press enter and it’s live.
To counter this we’d write all the commands we planned on executing and peer review it. Nothing was to be done “on the fly” (at least in theory)
In short, coming from a developer perspective with ample version controls and gated releases… networking is a very wild ride.
> There isn’t a concept of a transaction or a rollback.
Yeah, Cisco gear is bonkers.
Mikrotik has "Safe Mode", which undoes all commands since you entered "Safe Mode" if the connection that created the shell gets interrupted. It has saved my bacon on several occasions, but there are several obvious situations in which you can get yourself locked out.
Juniper gear has "commit confirmed $NUMBER_OF_MINUTES", which will roll back everything since your last commit if you don't do a "commit" within $NUMBER_OF_MINUTES. It will also, apply all of the changes you've staged all at once (and do configuration sanity checking before it performs the commit).
I do have no idea how Juniper's rollback works when multiple users are doing simultaneous config editing... maybe don't do that?
Yeah, Cisco gear is bonkers.
Mikrotik has "Safe Mode", which undoes all commands since you entered "Safe Mode" if the connection that created the shell gets interrupted. It has saved my bacon on several occasions, but there are several obvious situations in which you can get yourself locked out.
Juniper gear has "commit confirmed $NUMBER_OF_MINUTES", which will roll back everything since your last commit if you don't do a "commit" within $NUMBER_OF_MINUTES. It will also, apply all of the changes you've staged all at once (and do configuration sanity checking before it performs the commit).
I do have no idea how Juniper's rollback works when multiple users are doing simultaneous config editing... maybe don't do that?
> I do have no idea how Juniper's rollback works when multiple users are doing simultaneous config editing... maybe don't do that?
You get a warning
Some cisco kit has restconf which is better for automation, but it's buggy.
You get a warning
Users currently editing the configuration:
bob termainal p0...."
Some cisco kit has restconf which is better for automation, but it's buggy.
Modern router operating systems have this.
It’s been a long time since I’ve touched IOS-XE (Cisco enterprise gear) but Cisco IOS-XR, Junos, Arista EOS and the Nokia SRs all support some combination of configuration transactions with rollback and commit confirm on a timer
This definitely doesn’t stop you shooting yourself in the foot, similar to how you can still push broken config to a k8s controller, but it’s some level of protection for certain types of changes.
It’s been a long time since I’ve touched IOS-XE (Cisco enterprise gear) but Cisco IOS-XR, Junos, Arista EOS and the Nokia SRs all support some combination of configuration transactions with rollback and commit confirm on a timer
This definitely doesn’t stop you shooting yourself in the foot, similar to how you can still push broken config to a k8s controller, but it’s some level of protection for certain types of changes.
>"There isn’t a concept of a transaction or a rollback. You just enter a command, press enter and it’s live."
This hasn't been true for a very long time. Juniper router's have rollbacks, commits and revisions:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c...
and
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c...
Cisco has similar:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/ios_xe/fundamental...
This hasn't been true for a very long time. Juniper router's have rollbacks, commits and revisions:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c...
and
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c...
Cisco has similar:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/ios_xe/fundamental...
Except Cisco doesn’t have a commit feature in any of their OS and the rollback feature is not implemented everywhere as well - NXOs doesn’t have it for example. Still, it’s better than ‘reload in 5’ that we had to use back then.
That's not entirely true, you can rollback a change on modern switches/routers, either via a rollback command, or with a revert timer (configure terminal revert timer X) (because the new configuration might have made the router unreachable, so you're never sure you'll be able to rollback manually if you're working remotely).
Interesting. There's also some stuff in Cisco that can't be done both atomically and remotely, so you may have to push a change as a file to the router and then source the file into the running config with some permutation of `copy`.
Hadn't thought about it from the perspective of support contract profits, but they also have their friendship stick firmly planted in technicians via the semi-required training since as you indicate the manuals are deficient.
At some point network vendors switched manuals from engineers documenting features whitebox to educated techs documenting features blackbox.
There's a clear transition for docs produced after 2008, prior to which more care went into tech notes and interpreting technologies -- after you're lucky to even get a complete set of steps and caveats without having to cross-reference bugs, release notes, old-manuals, new-manuals, draft manuals, reference manuals, licensing manuals, the inevitable errors that appear in the logs, and of course the configuration guide where this should all be in the first place.
In short, yes, this.
At some point network vendors switched manuals from engineers documenting features whitebox to educated techs documenting features blackbox.
There's a clear transition for docs produced after 2008, prior to which more care went into tech notes and interpreting technologies -- after you're lucky to even get a complete set of steps and caveats without having to cross-reference bugs, release notes, old-manuals, new-manuals, draft manuals, reference manuals, licensing manuals, the inevitable errors that appear in the logs, and of course the configuration guide where this should all be in the first place.
In short, yes, this.
> The conspiratorial part of my brain says these network device makers intentionally provide unreliable software and terrible documentation to bolster their support contract profits.
As a dev who has worked at one of the major networking vendors, I can assure you that is the not the case. You’d be surprised by how major bugs are handled internally, especially if the bug affects “important” customers.
As a dev who has worked at one of the major networking vendors, I can assure you that is the not the case. You’d be surprised by how major bugs are handled internally, especially if the bug affects “important” customers.
Networking and storage changes are always butt clenching affairs. Way more stressful than anything else in IT due to their blast radius if something shits the bed.
> That's the norm in network ops. Automated testing is pretty much impossible, easy rollback may be possible depending on exactly what was screwed, but not always.
Ansible/Napalm is a thing in NetOps in some places. Some folks use Eve-ng / GNS3 to spin up virtual networks to test config changes, and it may be possible to do CI/CD changes if you track things in a repo.
Juniper JunOS has auto-rollback if you don't confirm the change after "x" minutes:
* https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c...
So if you did something that causes breakage and disconnection from the router, you (ideally) don't have to do anything but wait it out.
Ansible/Napalm is a thing in NetOps in some places. Some folks use Eve-ng / GNS3 to spin up virtual networks to test config changes, and it may be possible to do CI/CD changes if you track things in a repo.
Juniper JunOS has auto-rollback if you don't confirm the change after "x" minutes:
* https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c...
So if you did something that causes breakage and disconnection from the router, you (ideally) don't have to do anything but wait it out.
Emulating even a mid-sized network in GNS3 requires massive resources, and my cisco account manager doesn't seem to even get why I'd want to deploy a test system of 50 different multi-vendor switches (and key supporting services like syslog and tacacs) with terraform, run some tests, apply a configuration change, and run more tests.
And virtual switches aren't the same as physical switches in any case, they have different bugs, different features, different responsiveness.
And virtual switches aren't the same as physical switches in any case, they have different bugs, different features, different responsiveness.
commit confirmed is such a life-saver. I ran a production network which spanned multiple continents and even though I probably only ever actually needed commit confirmed a single digit number of times, the fact that it was there made every change I did 99% less stressful. I knew that even if I made a mistake, all I had to do was wait 5-10 minutes and it would all revert.
Compare this to my cisco/foundry/other experience where I would delay changes until I was in the office (physically colocated with main routers) or calling people to be onsite for what was 99% of the time an innocuous change. The stress of it led to me deferring changes or just skipping them entirely which led to more issues/stress/etc.
I'm really not sure there is a single software feature which improved my life as much as "commit confirmed"
Compare this to my cisco/foundry/other experience where I would delay changes until I was in the office (physically colocated with main routers) or calling people to be onsite for what was 99% of the time an innocuous change. The stress of it led to me deferring changes or just skipping them entirely which led to more issues/stress/etc.
I'm really not sure there is a single software feature which improved my life as much as "commit confirmed"
So instead of one ripple across your BGP network, you have two as it rollsback the change?
The problem is that the state in routing tables isn't stored in a single location, it's dynamically built over time. Breaking a single router in the wrong way can break the state, and there's no rollback of that state
The problem is that the state in routing tables isn't stored in a single location, it's dynamically built over time. Breaking a single router in the wrong way can break the state, and there's no rollback of that state
> So instead of one ripple across your BGP network, you have two as it rollsback the change?
It's possible, it depends on what the nature of the change is. If you use super short commit confirmed intervals (commit confirmed 1) then yes you can cause a situation where you revert a "good" commit and cause a second disturbance. You need to intelligently reason about commit confirmed times to consider this when you're making such changes.
It's possible, it depends on what the nature of the change is. If you use super short commit confirmed intervals (commit confirmed 1) then yes you can cause a situation where you revert a "good" commit and cause a second disturbance. You need to intelligently reason about commit confirmed times to consider this when you're making such changes.
How about describing how you implement systems that prevent this? You kind of talk about what was 'fixed', but not how. CI/CD is pretty hard to do for global networking changes. I'm sure whatever CF has done in this area is a lot of magic sauce and it would be super interesting to learn more about it, even at a high level.
Your CEO sure doesn't seem to have much empathy when it's someone else though:
https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1143182575680143361
https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1143182575680143361
I remember this happening. The 20 some sites we ran went down as they were supported by cloudflare. I spent a panicked 30 minutes trying to figure out what I had done wrong, to eventually find out it was on CF's end.
I remember voicing at our team meeting "boy, they must be panicking at CloudFlare."
Cloudflare works so spectacularly we just wrote it off as a one time thing.
I remember voicing at our team meeting "boy, they must be panicking at CloudFlare."
Cloudflare works so spectacularly we just wrote it off as a one time thing.
There was no panic but there was a lot of VUF (Very Urgent Focus)!
Holy shit I have been there and it sucks. I wasn't the guy who made the change, but I was on the long call that followed.
Time to share one of my favorite talks (and speakers) ever -
"Debugging Under Fire: Keep your Head when Systems have Lost their Mind" (Bryan Cantrill, GOTO 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30jNsCVLpAE
"Debugging Under Fire: Keep your Head when Systems have Lost their Mind" (Bryan Cantrill, GOTO 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30jNsCVLpAE
This was an awesome lunch listen, thank you for sharing!
The curse of network engineering. You’re invisible and insignificant when everything is running well, and public enemy number one if you make a mistake!
this is the general case with all critical systems. Everything from networking to sewers (... not actually that different now that I mention it) to pandemic planning. No one gets credit for the pandemic prevented because the BSL regulations did their job.
Live television production as well.
Security too.
Token-ring network. Someone configured their printer to use the gateway address in the ip address field. Idiot. "Turn off all devices on the internet, then turn them all on again one by one until we find the bastard who did this"
It’s not DNS
There’s no way it’s DNS
It was DNS
Credit: https://www.cyberciti.biz/humour/a-haiku-about-dns/
There’s no way it’s DNS
It was DNS
Credit: https://www.cyberciti.biz/humour/a-haiku-about-dns/
This reminded me of a talk at SREcon this year https://www.usenix.org/conference/srecon23americas/presentat...
Dang, I think I've encountered the same issue with my systems recently.
Or at least I think so, trying to figure out a packet loss issue on a virtual machine, for windows xp image.
Or at least I think so, trying to figure out a packet loss issue on a virtual machine, for windows xp image.
my own WAN IP got changed a few months after my ISP was eating(err, bought) by another larger ISP... now it's a private IPv4 address. I'm pretty sure my 'symmetrical bandwidth' is now only really true when testing it, a technique first invented by Herr Volkswer aus Deutsch-Wagen.
I miss the old days of IOS :
switchport trunk allowed vlan (add) xxx
Can’t imagine how many outages where caused by the missing « add » command.
switchport trunk allowed vlan (add) xxx
Can’t imagine how many outages where caused by the missing « add » command.
Too many Cisco commands would truncate the syntax if you didnt know better:
no access-list 101 permit something
so long access-list 101!
no access-list 101 permit something
so long access-list 101!
Was it an BGP border gateway protocol WAN update?
From this it sounds like they might have changed the primary loopback IP, which by default is the "router-id" for various routing protocols, causing the entire network to have to reconverge. You can override the default router-id with an explicit address that does not depend on lo0 but lots of networks don't do that.
It's extremely uncommon to change the primary loopback address. It's less uncommon to add an additional one but as the article says that syntax varies by vendor: Juniper will add as additional by default, Cisco and Arista will replace the existing primary one (IPv4) unless you include the "secondary" keyword...