tests: multiple OSPF routers connected to a single switch #14708
Conversation
|
I created this pull request to support the following issue report: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/doc/developer/topotests.rst (^f + "RFC 5737")
- Please drop incorrect comment symbols from frr.conf
| ip address 120.0.0.1/24 | ||
| ip ospf network point-to-multipoint | ||
| ip ospf area 0.0.0.0 | ||
| #ip ospf prefix-suppression |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect comment symbol for vtysh, use !.
| @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ | |||
| ! | |||
| hostname r1 | |||
| log file /tmp/r1-frr.log | |||
| @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ | |||
| ! | |||
| hostname r2 | |||
| log file /tmp/r2-frr.log | |||
| ip address 120.0.0.2/24 | ||
| ip ospf network point-to-multipoint | ||
| ip ospf area 0.0.0.0 | ||
| #ip ospf prefix-suppression |
| @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ | |||
| ! | |||
| hostname r3 | |||
| log file /tmp/r3-frr.log | |||
| sys.path.append(os.path.join(CWD, "../")) | ||
|
|
||
| # Required to instantiate the topology builder class. | ||
| pytestmark = [pytest.mark.ospfd, pytest.mark.bgpd] |
|
|
||
| # networks advertised by each router and the expected next hops | ||
| networks = { | ||
| "r1": ("10.0.1.0/24", "120.0.0.1"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please use IPv4 documentation ranges or private ranges instead of 120...?
| check_route(router_orig, network[0], network[1]) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def check_route(router_name, network, expected_nexthop): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't this be replaced to our existing function verify_rib()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added the functions verify_rib() and verify_ospf_rib(), but they don't do what is required. They only check the presence of the expected route, but they don't check if they are active. As a result, they succeed in cases where check_route() fails. For now, I am leaving verify_rib(), verify_ospf_rib(), and check_route().
| ), f"{router_name} (ospfd): no route {network} via {expected_nexthop}\n{dump_routes(router)}" | ||
|
|
||
| address = network.split("/")[0] | ||
| route = router.run(f"ip route get {address}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use ip -j route ..., it's easier to parse.
| ), f"{router_name} (kernel): no route {address} via {expected_nexthop}\n{dump_routes(router)}" | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def dump_routes(router): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think verify_rib() gives enough details when failing, I doubt this is useful to have.
A large set of routers are connected to the same switch. Each router shares a single network. All shared networks must be reachable from all routers. Signed-off-by: "Adriano Marto Reis" <[email protected]>
adrianomarto
force-pushed
the
test_ospfd_single_switch
branch
from
5f9e6b5 to
3ed36c6
Compare
|
This is the pull request that fixes the problem uncovered here. Should I cherry-pick the changes into the current pull request? |
|
Oh, I've just realized this is based on dev/9.1. It should be based on the master branch. Why is this for dev/9.1? |
|
I created this pull request to demonstrate the issue #14709, which is present in dev/9.1 but not in the master branch. |
|
@adrianomarto we need to find the commit that needs to be backported to 9.1 then instead. |
|
This is the commit that fixed the issue in the master branch: commit a272a2b |
Tests a large set of OSPF routers connected to the same switch. Each router shares a single network. All shared networks must be reachable from all routers. I don't expect the CI to succeed on dev/9.1 (at least until the issue is fixed).