-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tests: Verify PIM RP on an FHR #13619
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Log: pim_vrf_fhr_rp.py ..... [100%] --------------------------------------- generated xml file: /tmp/topotests/topotests.xml --------------------------------------- |
Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULCongratulations, this patch passed basic tests Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-11787/ This is a comment from an automated CI system. |
Will wait for you to add the test scenario mentioned over the meeting. |
This PR is stale because it has been open 180 days with no activity. Comment or remove the |
will take care in sometime |
Test PIM on a multi-VRF setup where the FHR is the RP. Verify the pimreg interface in VRF blue and red, and multicast stream from H1 goes out on both the VRFs. Basically, this test verifies RP when the FHR is directly connected to the sender. Signed-off-by: Rajesh Varatharaj <[email protected]>
5ddeb33
to
3a10425
Compare
@routingrocks, we started doing unified configs since 10.0, is it possible to switch to using |
Test PIM on a multi-VRF setup where the FHR is the RP. Verify the pimreg interface in VRF blue and red,
and multicast stream from H1 goes out on both the VRFs. Basically, this test verifies RP when the FHR is directly connected to the sender.
Signed-off-by: Rajesh Varatharaj [email protected]