openconfig
Otg rt2.13 update
Currently, OTG does not support IBGP with the same NextHOP across multiple devices. As a result, the DUT will only consider one neighborship. To address this, the test has been modified to use only ISIS, advertising the same route from three ISIS neighbors. The expected behavior is that traffic will load balance based on weights.
Pull Request Functional Test Report for #3316 / f70fea40880cb40d5253aaadabda1ac6648594a3
Virtual Devices
| Device | Test | Test Documentation | Job | Raw Log |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arista cEOS |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
||
| Cisco 8000E |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
||
| Cisco XRd |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
||
| Juniper ncPTX |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
||
| Nokia SR Linux |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
||
| Openconfig Lemming |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
Hardware Devices
| Device | Test | Test Documentation | Raw Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arista 7808 |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
|
| Cisco 8808 |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
|
| Juniper PTX10008 |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
|
| Nokia 7250 IXR-10e |  |
RT-2.13: Weighted-ECMP for IS-IS |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 14377477708
Details
- 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
- No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
- Overall coverage remained the same at 18.164%
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 14369376356: | 0.0% |
| Covered Lines: | 2476 |
| Relevant Lines: | 13631 |
💛 - Coveralls
Did this test pass at least in the KNE environment?
The test is passing with KNE environment but had to reduce the traffic rate and adjust tolerance accordingly. Attaching the log for your reference.
I validated this PR on 2 vendors and somehow the test is picking the TESTBED_DUT_ATE_4LINKS instead of TESTBED_DUT_ATE_9LINKS_LAG and the test fails due to the port issues.
argv[20]: '--testbed=../../../../../../../ops/netops/lab/wbb/testbeds/testbed_dut_ate_4links_lag.textproto'
Here is the failure
Port(t, port5) on dut(xxx.xxxx): port ID "port5" not found in reserved device "xxx.xxxx"
Did this test pass at least in the KNE environment?
The test is passing with KNE environment but had to reduce the traffic rate and adjust tolerance accordingly. Attaching the log for your reference.
I see in the logs that the UECMP traffic is failing. Can you give details on why it is failing?
--- FAIL: TestWeightedECMPForISIS/Unequal_Distribution_Of_Traffic (60.08s)
Did this test pass at least in the KNE environment?
The test is passing with KNE environment but had to reduce the traffic rate and adjust tolerance accordingly. Attaching the log for your reference. RT_2.13_kne_ceos.log
I see in the logs that the UECMP traffic is failing. Can you give details on why it is failing?
--- FAIL: TestWeightedECMPForISIS/Unequal_Distribution_Of_Traffic (60.08s)
The DUT image I was using is not supporting UECMP, but same was checked by @MarcCharlebois and the test worked for Marc, @MarcCharlebois Can you please share the logs with your DUT.
In the original metadata.textproto, we had TESTBED_DUT_ATE_8LINKS and now this is changed to TESTBED_DUT_ATE_9LINKS_LAG Do we need to change the testbed? Can't we keep the same testbed to work with?
Even if we change in the metada.textproto, i see that the README.md still reflects the atedut_8 links testbed. TESTBED_DUT_ATE_8LINKS
For the test to work with KNE, we have to use this textproto https://github.com/openconfig/featureprofiles/blob/main/topologies/kne/arista/ceos/dutate_lag.textproto.
Did this test pass at least in the KNE environment?
The test is passing with KNE environment but had to reduce the traffic rate and adjust tolerance accordingly. Attaching the log for your reference. RT_2.13_kne_ceos.log
I see in the logs that the UECMP traffic is failing. Can you give details on why it is failing?
--- FAIL: TestWeightedECMPForISIS/Unequal_Distribution_Of_Traffic (60.08s)The DUT image I was using is not supporting UECMP, but same was checked by @MarcCharlebois and the test worked for Marc, @MarcCharlebois Can you please share the logs with your DUT.
I have some additional local changes required for a pass, so I don't think it's fair representation of the test in it's current state. In the even that this PR is merged, I'll write another PR on top of it and share my logs via b/.
@ram-mac, I think the changes to be addressed to merge this pull request right. Upon your approval @rohit-rp will review and merge
Validation with vendors fails due to the testbed link issue. The issue is that this PR has changed the textproto to TESTBED_DUT_ATE_9LINKS_LAG and when it is validated it picks up the 4 links testbed. Even after changing the textproto to the original one which is TESTBED_DUT_ATE_8LINKS the test actually picks up 4 link testbed only ultimately failing the test on any vendor
@ANISH-GOTTAPU Based on our discussion here are some issues with this PR 1.TESTBED_DUT_ATE_9LINKS_LAG will not work for this test as it will pick 4port testbed and this change needs to be reverted back. 2.The code changes you have done is failing to configure the DUT. See the error below which needs to fixed. Have shared with you the full fail logs in email.
}: failed to apply: interface Ethernet5/3/8 speed not exist doesn't match with breakout-mode config for port Ethernet5/3-Port: {"openconfig-platform-port:group":[{"config":{"breakout-speed":"openconfig-if-ethernet:SPEED_100GB","index":1,"num-breakouts":4,"num-physical-channels":2},"index":1,"state":{"breakout-speed":"openconfig-if-ethernet:SPEED_100GB","index":1,"num-breakouts":4,"num-physical-channels":2}}]}
@ANISH-GOTTAPU - Can you rebase this branch and recommit; there are a lot of CI/CD failures i see. I think once u rebase those should be resolved.
@ANISH-GOTTAPU - Can you rebase this branch and recommit; there are a lot of CI/CD failures i see. I think once u rebase those should be resolved.
@ram-mac : Rebased the branch with main, can you please check.
@ANISH-GOTTAPU - Can you rebase this branch and recommit; there are a lot of CI/CD failures i see. I think once u rebase those should be resolved.
@ram-mac : Rebased the branch with main, can you please check.
Thanks @ANISH-GOTTAPU - will approve now.