Imagine you want to deploy a BGP route reflector for MPLS 6PE or L3VPN service. Both services run over MPLS LSPs, use IPv4 BGP sessions, and use IPv4 next hops for BGP routes. There’s absolutely no reason to need IPv6 routing on a node that handles solely the control-plane activity (it never appears as a BGP next hop anywhere), right? Cisco IOS disagrees, as I discovered when running route reflector integration tests for netlab 6PE and (MPLS) L3VPN functionality.

Most platforms failed those tests because we forgot to configure route-reflector-clients in labeled IPv6 and VPNv4/VPNv6 address families¹. That was easy to fix, but the IOS-based devices were still failing the tests, with nothing in the toolchain ever complaining about configuration problems.

I guess your LinkedIn feed is as full of AI nonsense as mine is, so I usually just skip all that posturing. However, every now and then, I stumble upon an idea that makes sense… until you start to dig deeper into it.

There was this post about AI agents speaking BGP with an associated GitHub repo, so I could go take a look at what it’s all about.

The proof-of-concept (so the post author) has two components:

Following a link in another Martin Fowler’s blog post, I stumbled upon his thoughts on Open Space events – a way to set up self-organizing events.

I’m not sure I’m brave (or young) enough to try it out, but if you’re planning to organize a small gathering (like a local Network Operator Group), this might be an interesting, slightly more structured approach than a Net::Beer event. It would also be nice to know whether someone managed to pull it off in an online format.

Petr Ankudinov wrote an excellent comment about netlab Fast cEOS Configuration implementation. Paraphrasing the original comment:

If the use case is the initial lab deployment, why don’t you use containerlab startup-config option to change the device’s startup configuration?

I have to admit, I’m too old to boldly go with the just use the startup configuration approach. In ancient times, Cisco IOS did crazy stuff if you rearranged the commands in the startup configuration. But ignoring that historical trivia (Cisco IOS/XE seems to be doing just fine), there are several reasons why I decided to use the startup configurations (and you can use them with some containers) as the last resort:

While we’re mostly discussing EVPN in conjunction with VXLAN encapsulation, its initial use case was as an alternate control plane for MPLS networks.

Krzysztof Szarkowicz had a great presentation describing the specifics of EVPN in MPLS-Based Environments a few years ago. Those videos (part of the EVPN Technical Deep Dive webinar) are now public; you can watch them without an ipSpace.net account.

Looking for more binge-watching materials? You’ll find them here.

What’s wrong with me? Why do I have to uncover another weirdness every single time I run netlab integration tests on a new platform? Today, it’s Cisco IOS/XR (release 25.2.1) and its understanding of what “passive” means. According to the corresponding documentation, the passive interface configuration command is exactly what I understood it to be:

Use the passive command in appropriate mode to suppress the sending of OSPF protocol operation on an interface.

However, when I ran the OSPFv2 passive interface integration test with an IOS/XR container, it kept failing with neighbor is in Init state (the first and only time I ever encountered such an error after testing over two dozen platforms).

Last week, I described some of the gotchas I encountered while trying to make EVPN MAC-VRFs work on Cisco IOS/XE. In the meantime, I got IP-VRFs with transit VXLAN segments working. Here are the CliffsNotes:

Starting with the disgusting configuration mechanism:

Ignoring the obligatory misguided mention of OpenFlow and a few other unicorns, I found this article to be a nice introduction to modern forwarding architectures, including networking infrastructure for AI clusters and distributed cell-based fabrics.

Apart from IP multicast and QoS, netlab can configure commonly used networking technologies across dozens of devices from most networking vendors. Why don’t you use all that embedded knowledge (supported by hundreds of integration tests) to help you configure unfamiliar devices?

You don’t have to install VM or container managers (Vagrant/containerlab), or beg vendors to give you access to device VMs/containers, to get working device configurations. All you need is a Python package that works on Windows¹, macOS, or Linux.

It’s as simple as this:

Want to spend an hour or two configuring some cool stuff this weekend? How about getting SR-MPLS to work with IS-IS and building a BGP-free core with it?

If you already set up your own netlab environment, you probably know what to do (or you can get the details here). Alternatively, you can click here to start the lab in your browser using GitHub Codespaces. After starting the lab environment, change the directory to advanced/10-sr and execute netlab up.

After reading the L2 Vxlan On Catalyst blog post, I decided to add EVPN configuration templates to netlab-supported Cisco IOS/XE devices. It wasn’t the easiest EVPN implementation I encountered; here’s what I learned (hoping you’ll find it helpful).

Starting with the trivial hiccups:

netlab release 26.02 is out, including the usual potpourri of goodies:

• Support for Kubernetes (KinD) clusters based on work by @wnagele
• Layer-2 EVPN/VXLAN support on Cat8000v, IOL, and IOLL2
• netlab graph command can create graphs from a subset of nodes or links
• You can specify the parameters of core links in the fabric plugin
• OSPFv3 reports

The fun part, however, are the new container configuration methods:

Brian Linkletter published an updated overview of open-source network simulators and emulators.

containerlab and GNS3 are clear leaders (no surprise there) with the original vrnetlab becoming abandonware (fortunately, we have Roman Dodin’s fork), which makes me think we should focus on using netlab primarily with containerlab and slowly sunset the Vagrant support, particularly considering some people actively hate the license change.

Also, if anyone feels like writing an interface (provider module) between netlab and GNS3, the pull request would be most welcome 😎

Any thoughts? Please leave a comment!

After the enormous speedup I achieved with the FRR containers, I tried to do something similar with the Arista cEOS ones. After all, Arista’s pretty open about running its software on standard Linux, so it should be possible to map host-side configuration files into container-side scripts and execute them, right?

There was just one tiny gotcha: all netlab-generated EOS configuration files are device configuration snippets that are intended to be submitted via EOS CLI, and I didn’t feel like cracking open the netmiko documentation (that’s another backburner project).

However, Arista cEOS includes this magic command called FastCli ;)

In the previous EVPN/VXLAN lab exercises, we covered the basics of Ethernet bridging over VXLAN and the use of the EVPN control plane to build layer-2 segments.

It’s time to move up the protocol stack. Let’s see how you can route between VXLAN segments, this time using unique unicast IP addresses on the layer-3 switches.

You can run the lab on your own netlab-enabled infrastructure (more details), but also within a free GitHub Codespace or even on your Apple-silicon Mac (installation, using Arista cEOS container, using VXLAN/EVPN labs).