vrnetlab nodes without their own kind in Containerlab

[kaelemc]

This issue is to track vrnetlab nodes which don't have their own kind in Containerlab. Which means there isn't functionality like interface aliases, SSH config, correct hostname etc.

I assume this list will grow.. so far I've added some Cisco nodes. Slowly over time these items should be ticked off as they get added.

• Cisco ASAv (asav) -- this node need some work done on the vrnetlab side.
• Cisco IOSv (vios)
• Cisco NX-OS (nxos)

[hellt]

I wouldn't want us to support legacy sysytems as much. If nxos is done and there is a n9kv substitute, do we need it?

Regarding vios, people were using it when this system was added to vrnetlab. What kind did they use?

[kaelemc]

Yeah I somewhat agree.. My rationale is it's such a trivial thing to implement for fairly decent UX gains, although it's certainly not a priority.

NX-OS is like XRv. While they both are running older versions of the NOS they're both wayyyyy lighter and have roughly half the resource requirement + half the boot times as their 9k equivalents (n9kv and XRv9k)..

I don't know specifics about NX-OS vs N9Kv but with XRv it supports things like VPLS control-plane which XRv9k doesn't even support.

vIOS is only in your fork of vrnetlab. It uses the linux kind, but honestly I don't really know how many people are using it since around the same time we released IOL which seemed to interest people a lot more since IOL is not only lighter but it runs IOS-XE code where vIOS is running IOS.. which is pretty much deprecated by Cisco at this point. (and IOS-XE and IOS are basically the same CLI, XE just runs ontop of a linux kernel).

Let me know your thoughts.

EDIT: I think I see what you were getting at, I haven't tried but maybe we can share n9kv and nxos under the n9kv kind..

[hellt]

Ok, I am convinced :) let's do that