
Fibbing: Small Lies for Better Networks - detaro
http://fibbing.github.io/
======
detaro
Microsoft, Google and others have described SDN systems that peer with routers
over BGP to control traffic flow. This adapts this concept to OSPF, which is a
bit trickier, since OSPF keeps more information about the layout of the
network.

Podcast by Ivan Pepelnjak with creator here:
[http://blog.ipspace.net/2015/11/fibbing-ospf-based-
traffic-e...](http://blog.ipspace.net/2015/11/fibbing-ospf-based-traffic-
engineering.html)

~~~
ra1n85
BGP is far more flexible and less expensive, which is why Microsoft, Google,
and Amazon have used it. Further, the data structures used by BGP (NLRIs) are
easily extensible for complex networks involving many dimensions for path
selection.

Not sure about the value add of using a protocol that keeps state on the whole
network, specifically when that is the task of a centralized controller. Also,
OSPF has many quirks that prevent it from scaling well, and offers far less
tuning when it comes to path selection.

~~~
detaro
I agree with your points, except the claim that BGP is less expensive. If you
look outside of fat datacenter ToR switches, there are quite a few models
where BGP either requires a more expensive firmware version or is not
available at all.

~~~
ra1n85
Expensive in this context refers to compute capacity needed to determine a
path, not monetary cost.

~~~
vanbee
@ra1n85: the capacity needed to determine a path is negligible. The routers
actually don't even need to recompute their shortest-path when presented with
a lie. This is described in the podcast.

