If you’re at all interested in the history of networking, you simply MUST watch the BGP at 18: Lessons In Protocol Design lecture by Dr. Yakov Rekhter recorded in 2007 (as you can probably guess from the awful video quality) (HT: Berislav Todorovic via LinkedIn).

Petr Ankudinov made an interesting remark when I complained about how much time I wasted waiting for Cisco 8000v to boot when developing netlab device configuration templates:

For Arista part - just use AVD with all templates included and ANTA for testing. I was always wondering why netlab is not doing that.

Like any other decent network automation platform, netlab uses a high-level data model (lab topology) to describe the network. That data model is then transformed into a device-level data model, and the device-level data structures are used to generate device configurations.

One of the major differences between OSPF and IS-IS is their handling of inter-area routes. Non-backbone OSPF intra-area routes are copied into the backbone area and later (after the backbone SPF run) copied into other areas. IS-IS does not copy level-2 routes into level-1 areas; level-1 areas (by default) behave like totally stubby OSPF areas with the level-1 routers using the Attached (ATT) bit of level-1-2 routers in the same area to generate the default route.

One of my readers attempted to implement a multi-vendor multicast VPN over MPLS but failed. As a good network engineer, he tried various duct tapes but found that the only working one was a GRE tunnel within a VRF, resulting in considerable frustration. In his own words:

How is a GRE tunnel different compared to an MPLS LSP? I feel like conceptually, they kind of do the same thing. They just tunnel traffic by wrapping it with another header (one being IP/GRE, the other being MPLS).

Instead of going down the “how many angels are dancing on this pin” rabbit hole (also known as “Is MPLS tunneling?”), let’s focus on the fundamental differences between GRE/IPsec/VXLAN tunnels and MPLS paths.

TL&DR: Of course, the title is clickbait. While the differences are amazing, you won’t notice them in small topologies or when using bloatware that takes minutes to boot.

Let’s start with the background story: due to the (now fixed) suboptimal behavior of bleeding-edge Ansible releases, I decided to generate the device configuration files within netlab (previously, netlab prepared the device data, and the configuration files were rendered in an Ansible playbook).

As we use bash scripts to configure Linux containers, it makes little sense (once the bash scripts are created) to use an Ansible playbook to execute docker exec script or ip netns container exec script. netlab release 26.01 runs the bash scripts to configure Linux, Bird, and dnsmasq containers directly within the netlab initial process.

Now for the juicy part.

Why do we need Infrahub, another network automation tool? What does it bring to the table, who should be using it, and why is it using a graph database internally?

I discussed these questions with Damien Garros, the driving force behind Infrahub, the founder of OpsMill (the company developing it), and a speaker in the ipSpace.net Network Automation course.

David Gee was time-pressed to set up a demo network to showcase his network automation solution and found that a Ubuntu VM running netlab to orchestrate Arista cEOS containers on his Apple Silicon laptop was exactly what he needed.

I fixed a few blog posts based on his feedback (I can’t tell you how much I appreciate receiving a detailed “you should fix this stuff” message, and how rare it is, so thanks a million!), and David was kind enough to add a delightful cherry on top of that cake with this wonderful blurb:

Netlab has been a lifesaver. Ivan’s entire approach, from the software to collecting instructions and providing a meaningful information trail, enabled me to go from zero to having a functional lab in minutes. It has been an absolute lifesaver.

I can be lazy with the infrastructure side, because he’s done all of the hard work. Now I get to concentrate on the value-added functionality of my own systems and test with the full power of an automated and modern network lab. Game-changing.

TL&DR: Most probably not, but if you do, you’d better not rely on random blogs for professional advice #justSaying 😜

Here’s an interesting question I got from a reader in the midst of an OSPF-to-IS-IS migration:

Why should one bother with different [IS-IS] areas when the routing hierarchy is induced by the two levels and the appropriate IS-IS circuit types on the links between the routers?

Well, if you think you need a routing hierarchy, you’re bound to use IS-IS areas because that’s how the routing hierarchy is implemented in IS-IS. However…

I completely rewrote netlab’s device configuration file generation during the New Year break. netlab Release 26.01 no longer uses Ansible Jinja2 functionality and works with Ansible releases 12/13, which are used solely for configuration deployment. I had to break a few eggs to get there; if you encounter any problems, please open an issue.

Other new features include:

• EVPN for VXLAN-over-IPv6
• The ‘skip_config’ node attribute that can be used to deploy partially-provisioned labs
• Lightweight netlab API HTTP server by Craig Johnson
• Rudimentary support for Citrix Netscaler by Seb d’Argoeuves

You’ll find more details (and goodies) in the release notes.

They say time goes faster as you get older, and it seems to be true. Another year has (almost) gone by.

Try to disconnect from the crazy pace of the networking world, forget the “vibe coding with AI will make engineers obsolete” stupidities (hint: Fifth Generation Languages and Natural Language Programming were all the rage in the 1980s and 1990s), and focus on your loved ones. I would also like to wish you all the best in 2026!

In the meantime, I’m working on weaning netlab off of a particular automation tool (you can always track the progress on GitHub). Expect the first results in the January netlab release.