Fun and Games with Overlay Tunnels: Part 3: How to setup a working (n-tier) 4-tier Hierarchy

 

 In my previous blog I stated, that in VMware SD-WAN we can have Branch to Branch connectivity via overlay, as long as we have the branch routes announced with a maximum of 2 overlay hops away.

Now let´s proof this assumption in my lab and modify it in order to establish a 4-tier hierarchy:


I applied a new profile to the Regional Hubs, which now have only overlay tunnels to the 2 DC-Hubs, thus removing the permanant tunnel between all Regional Hubs.


There is no change in paths between Branch Edges and DC-network

 VPC-A1> ping 10.1.201.2   (VPC-DC)

84 bytes from 10.1.201.2 icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=58.340 ms
84 bytes from 10.1.201.2 icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=19.604 ms
84 bytes from 10.1.201.2 icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=48.628 ms
84 bytes from 10.1.201.2 icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=180.321 ms
84 bytes from 10.1.201.2 icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=23.469 ms

VPC-A1> trace 10.1.201.2   (VPC-DC)
trace to 10.1.201.2, 8 hops max, press Ctrl+C to stop
 1   10.2.201.1   3.737 ms  2.933 ms  0.999 ms                  (VCE-A1)
 2   100.64.112.2   546.692 ms  32.041 ms  15.937 ms      OVL 1 (Hub-A2)
 3   100.64.121.2   276.149 ms  47.469 ms  101.017 ms     OVL 2 (HUB-DC-1)
 4   10.0.201.2   379.116 ms  84.234 ms  332.541 ms             (R-DC)
 5   *10.1.201.2   552.016 ms (ICMP type:3, code:3, Destination port unreachable

But there is now a 4 hop working overlay tunnel between branches in different regions:  

VPC-A1> ping 10.3.202.79 (VPC-B2)

84 bytes from 10.3.202.79 icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=204.124 ms
84 bytes from 10.3.202.79 icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=60.646 ms
84 bytes from 10.3.202.79 icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=83.949 ms
84 bytes from 10.3.202.79 icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=72.727 ms
84 bytes from 10.3.202.79 icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=80.987 ms

VPC-A1> trace 10.3.202.79   (VPC-B2)
trace to 10.3.202.79, 8 hops max, press Ctrl+C to stop
 1   10.2.201.1   9.563 ms  0.466 ms  2.328 ms                   (VCE-A1)
 2   100.64.112.2   295.644 ms  6.665 ms  9.424 ms         OVL 1 (Hub-A2)
 3   100.64.122.2   232.402 ms  12.292 ms  14.411 ms       OVL 2 (Hub-DC-2)
 4   100.64.113.2   118.506 ms  36.059 ms  44.155 ms       OVL 3 (Hub-B)
 5   100.64.104.2   107.179 ms  75.817 ms  56.842 ms       OVL 4 (VCE-B2)
 6   *10.3.202.79   236.379 ms (ICMP type:3, code:3, Destination port unreachable)
 


 So, YES , that is the proof that we can build up B2B connectivity over 4 or n hops, as long as we readvertise the branch routes after every 2 hops. 

And I also could proof the assumption, that in networking almost everything is possible.


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Orchestrator Upgrade to Version 5.2

Image
 Recently I upgraded my VMware SD-WAN lab from version 5.0 to 5.2. Since some previous versions the official documentation  recommends to ask TAC for help in upgrading.   Docu 5.2: Orchestrator Upgrade  But if you have an unsupported implementation, like I do, you need to do it on your own: Trying to copy the new version to the VCO failed and I found out that I needed to increase a disk volume How to increase disk volume on VCO is described in this blog:   VCO Upgrade to 4.5.x After increasing the disk size my copy succeeded   NOTE: I did not copy direct to the installation directory including a renaming, as once an upgrade started that file gets deleted and if there are any problems to have to redo the copy from outside.  vcadmin@vco-lab-254:~$ ls -l total 2504488 drwxr-x--- 2 root    root          4096 Aug 31  2022 20220831130007 -rw-rw---- 1 vcadmin vcadmin 2564587520 Aug 10 07:57 vco-debs-signed-5.2.0.3-R5203-20230809-GA-ff5cd1917e.tar vcadmin@vco-lab-254:~$ sudo cp vco-debs-signed
Read more

Deep Dive on DMPO and its Performance Features (available and missing) Part 1

Image
 In the last year I got quite deep insight into ther vendors SD-WAN implementation and also have seen what various vendors are critizising about the VMware DMPO features. Also there are a lot of misconceptions on the market around some of these features. So let´s try and evaluate and look a little bit deeper into typical performance features and the VMware implementation of them Features discussed in this Blog (Part 1) Per Packet Load Balancing Forward Error Correction (FEC) Packet Replication Latency Remediation The following Features will be discussed in Part 2 of my blog TCP Optimization Techniques Dejitter Buffering SAAS Application Monitoring   Per Packet Load Balancing  Unfortunately this term can be quite easily misinterpreted, when you Google for the term and get the following result:  This behaviour (often criticized by other vendors about VMware) as described above would only work quite well when you have very similar or equal connections. If for example 2 links have  both 10
Read more

Deep Dive on DMPO and its Performance Features (available and missing) Part 2

Image
  The following Features will be discussed in this second part of my blog TCP Optimization Techniques Dejitter Buffering SAAS Application Monitoring   Before diving into the mechanism here an important basic fact:     Remediation is never done for applications classified as LOW priority     TCP optimization TCP has some embedded traffic management capabilities for reliable traffic delivery  (window.size, slow-start, RTT handling,...)  But there are a bunch of factors which can negatively influence the performance, like Latency TCP-slow-start Last Mile network problems Out of Sequence packets Busty losses end host TCP limitations (missing fatures like SACK, windows scaling or timestamp options)  Typically TCP optimization helps on the transmission side and improve the download time for large data transfers over latency-high and lossy WAN links. But it can also be used for improving perfomance when on the receiver side the amount of buffers is limited and/or when the client is n
Read more