This article challenges partisans in the BGP vs OSPF debate but it's deeper than just pointing out that the wire protocol is quite superficial. Obviously, at scale you have to control OSPF to avoid update floods. But BGP also needs to be controlled so bad entries aren't trusted and propagated; for example, https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-verizon-and-a-bgp-optimizer-...
The deeper message in the article is linked https://elegantnetwork.github.io/posts/Network-Validation-wi... and it's about simulating infrastructure. This is so important for large scale systems as complex aggregate behaviour easily emerges from myopic error handling strategies that only take into account the local view from each actor. This is true for any large scale system not just networks!
The wire protocol is the surface; what information is propagated is essential and what lies underneath. Simulation illuminates these depths. Whiteboard discussions are great for debugging and communicating specific cases - for example, aggregate responses to retry backoff rules that are locally sensible can cascade into catastrophes if many actors follow the same process. However, it's hard as human beings to find these cases without the help of tools. Tools are so important!
I linked to it because it touched on BGP optimisation techniques, and illustrates the dangers of automatically passing on each update.
Is there a better link to a public postmortem that illustrates these problems in a datacenter context? When we were operating the Facebook Moonshot project we found that even internally in controlled datacenters, at a scale less than Amazon's, there is plenty of diversity
> Obviously, at scale you have to control OSPF to avoid update floods. But BGP also needs to be controlled so bad entries aren't trusted and propagated;
Well, sure, but why would this be an issue inside your datacenter?
As tptacek mentions, that has nothing to do with the choice of BGP vs. OSPF as your IGP.
>I think whiteboards are the most important tool for network design (...)I can’t even tell you the number of disasters averted by 2-3 great network engineers arguing over a whiteboard.
I strongly agree with this statement and think it holds true for a lot of IT/dev/ops fields.
That's something I miss when working remotely. Has anyone found a tool that is seamless enough to allow for true interactivity, as much as be in the same room and sharing a whiteboard?
> If you are running a small Clos network and don’t have IPv6 or EVPN [..]
... seem like two relevant qualifiers to choose BGP over OSPF.
Other than that, being religious about a certain technology seems like a bad mindset to hold on to indeed. When you have a certain scale it starts to make sense to question the efficiency of the primary technology in the market for your specific use case.
Edit: essential qualifier for the mentioned mindset added
Most network engineers are very well versed in OSPF. Having come up through the ranks of Cisco's early NetAcad curriculum in the early 2000s, when BGP was very rarely used in internal networks, thr content was 80% focused on IGP and large L2 design and troubleshooting. It seems to me the IGP has fallen out of favor partially due to simplicity over the right tool in the right context. I'm sure, as you state, part of that has to do with the responsible engineers lacking experience and shying away. But in many cases BGP can be slower and less forgiving where a focused IGP can add value and, most importantly control.
I was part of a team running a multi-state network for an ISP around a decade ago. Even then we had a lot of design and architecture reviews of spreading BGP as far and wide as possible. But the IGPs, at regional node levels (HFC type networks) always had functionality for end user provisioning that allowed us to more easily provision and troubleshoot.
While I don't agree or disagree that BGP can't be the right solution what it really comes down to is understanding the use cases compared to the protocols. I find that most engineers today only loosely understand BGP and OSPF. Fully vetted network engineers seem to be fewer and further between. I moved away from that as a role years ago but my experience in large networks and understanding those protocols, although admittedly not as well as when I was studying for the CCIE labs, has been a fundamental skill I still use day in and out. And as we move more to software defined overlays I find it coming up more and more these days.
The big advantage of using OSPF over BGP is during a network outage. OSPF can have extremely fast convergence due to the authoratative/hierarchal design, where as BGP is decentralized and it takes time for network changes to propagate. Additionally, BGP is not always available on layer three switches, either due to licensing (I've seen BGP excluded from basic licenses) or just not supported by the vendor. Finally, OSPF is a lot simpler to setup and secure (everything could live in area 0 without the world ending), whereas BGP requires some decent architecture chops to make sure you don't create suboptimal routes or loops.
Most places run BGP at the border (ha) and OSPF on the inside, this gives them the agility of BGP with the convergence of OSPF.
Is this why AWS doesn't support IPv6? Because they're running OSPF (v2) across their datacenters?
After all the work they (apparently) had to do to get OSPF to work, I can understnd why they'd not want to repeat all of that to test and validate OSPFv3 too.
---
For the uninitiated, OSPFv2 only supports IPv4. IPv6 would also require deployment of OSPFv3. BGP, which is typically used in these situations, supports both IPv4 and IPv6 (and many other features which are often desired).
The deeper message in the article is linked https://elegantnetwork.github.io/posts/Network-Validation-wi... and it's about simulating infrastructure. This is so important for large scale systems as complex aggregate behaviour easily emerges from myopic error handling strategies that only take into account the local view from each actor. This is true for any large scale system not just networks!
The wire protocol is the surface; what information is propagated is essential and what lies underneath. Simulation illuminates these depths. Whiteboard discussions are great for debugging and communicating specific cases - for example, aggregate responses to retry backoff rules that are locally sensible can cascade into catastrophes if many actors follow the same process. However, it's hard as human beings to find these cases without the help of tools. Tools are so important!