tests: Check PIM Register/-Stop handling in pim_igmp_vrf topotest #18329
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Using "router pim" blocks instead of "ip pim ..." statements. No functional changes. Signed-off-by: Martin Buck <[email protected]>
|
style suggestions: |
Shouldn't be required, but without this, the "router pim vrf ..." command introduced in the previous commit crashes with an assertion failure: 2025/03/10 17:02:12 PIM: [G822R-SBMNH] config-from-file# router pim vrf blue 2025/03/10 17:02:12 PIM: lib/routing_nb_config.c:51: routing_control_plane_protocols_control_plane_protocol_create(): assertion (vrf) failed To be analyzed/fixed later. Once fixed, this commit may be reverted. Signed-off-by: Martin Buck <[email protected]>
…otest Only documentation/formatting, no functional changes. Signed-off-by: Martin Buck <[email protected]>
…test We use VRF interfaces as loopback interfaces, but they're not real loopback interfaces, so in contrast to lo, pimd will not automatically use passive mode for them. So explicitly enable passive mode when adding them to PIM. Doesn't change results of the topotest, but causes less clutter in captured PCAP files. Signed-off-by: Martin Buck <[email protected]>
Check whether PIM Register messages are generated towards the RP and answered by Register-Stop from the RP. To force generation of PIM Register, move the DR role from the RP on R11/12 to R1 (otherwise, with DR and RP being the same routers, no Register messages would be needed). The RPs need to generate Register-Stop because there are no other group members besides the ones on the path whether the traffic is received from on the RPs. Useful as a regression test for FRRouting#18216 even though the situation there was slightly different: In that case, the RP was the VRF router and its Register-Stop messages ended up the in the wrong VRF. In our case, the DRs are the VRF routers and the Register messages would end up in the wrong VRF. But our check works for both cases: If we don't receive Register-Stop messages, either the Register or the Register-Stop messages got lost and will trigger an assertion failure. Signed-off-by: Martin Buck <[email protected]>
gromit1811
force-pushed
the
bugfix/pim_vrf_topotest
branch
from
c3a53d4 to
cea2017
Compare
|
Converted to draft while working on IPv6 support |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Check whether PIM Register messages are generated towards the RP and answered by Register-Stop from the RP. To force generation of PIM Register, move the DR role from the RP on R11/12 to R1 (otherwise, with DR and RP being the same routers, no Register messages would be needed). The RPs need to generate Register-Stop because there are no other group members besides the ones on the path whether the traffic is received from on the RPs.
Useful as a regression test for #18216 even though the situation there was slightly different: In that case, the RP was the VRF router and its Register-Stop messages ended up the in the wrong VRF. In our case, the DRs are the VRF routers and the Register messages would end up in the wrong VRF. But our check works for both cases: If we don't receive Register-Stop messages, either the Register or the Register-Stop messages got lost and will trigger an assertion failure.
Note: The last commit is the actual change to check PIM Register. The other commits are just minor cleanup/bugfix changes to the original topotest.