topotests: test bfd when bgp is passive #18954
Conversation
|
While this is okay, can we have a separate topotest instead of replacing this one (non peer-group...)? |
I actually started by making a copy of the test in a separate subdir 😁 What would be a good way to make a separate test that uses all the same code, and only differs in config files? It seems too ugly to just copy everything? What's your advice, @ton31337 ? |
|
Create a new test_XXXX.py in the same directory. Have it setup slightly differently but all the same code put into a XXX_common.py ( Look at what was done in the route_scale test ). |
crosser
force-pushed
the
test-bfd-bgp-passive
branch
from
113428b to
02d33f4
Compare
Did that. With the existing infrastructure, it is still more verbose than I would like, but I tried to make it as succinct as was practical 🙂 |
For one of bfd tests, add a version that runs bgp session "passively", with "bgp listen" and without peer address known upfront. Several 10.x versions of frr had this mode not working. It started to work again in 10.3.1. Signed-off-by: Eugene Crosser <[email protected]>
crosser
force-pushed
the
test-bfd-bgp-passive
branch
from
02d33f4 to
6c13cc0
Compare
|
Can this be merged now please, or are there other remarks? I believe that test failure is unrelated to this change. Thanks! |
3 participants
Some versions between 10.0 and 10.3.1 had BFD not working if one of BGP peers was in "passive mode", i.e. instead of peers with addresses, a
peer-groupwas defined to be matched bybgp listenstatement. This problem went unnoticed because there was no test for bfd in such mode.This commit modifies one of existing bfd tests to run bgp session "passively". It fails against 10.3, and passes against 10.3.1