[minigraph] Enhanced parser to parse interface name for static route nexthop #9707
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
df46ed418e661a9bccdb2639d8873def356f8ba0 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Fix the LLDP_LOC_CHASSIS not getting populated if no remote neighbors are present (sonic-net#39) e487532e11cc0e97cfce573b6b997fdd0beeb660 [CI] Set up CI&PR with Azure Pipelines (sonic-net#38) 3c9f488490a1dbded20dbf2d8a88a5ab4dbda8df Replace swsssdk's SonicV2Connector with swsscommon's implementation (sonic-net#35) Signed-off-by: Abhishek Dosi <abdosi@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Abhishek Dosi <abdosi@microsoft.com>
for the static route configuration. Signed-off-by: Abhishek Dosi <abdosi@microsoft.com>
|
@anamehra please help to validate this change. |
abdosi
added
Request for 202111 Branch
|
/ azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
/azp run |
|
You have several pipelines (over 10) configured to build pull requests in this repository. Specify which pipelines you would like to run by using /azp run [pipelines] command. You can specify multiple pipelines using a comma separated list. |
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-buildimage |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
arlakshm
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2022
abdosi
added a commit
to sonic-net/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 13, 2022
…4906) What I did: Enhanced DPG for generating Static Route Config with interface name for chassis-packet. Why I did: As mention here:- sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#9707. It need support of this PR.
judyjoseph
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2022
…nexthop (#9707) What I did:- Enhanced minigraph parser to parse interface name associated with static route nexthop Why I did:- One of the use case to support interface name is Chassis Packet. For Chassis Packet we have Static Routes configured to route traffic across line-card. If the FRR programs static route without the interface name then in case if the ip interface that is associated with the nexthop goes down FRR resolves static route nexthop over the default route as we have FRR config ip nht-resolve-via-default which causes undesired behavior. Having interface name with Static Route prevents recursive lookup on default route. How I verify: Updated unit-test cases Manual verification
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.
What I did:-
Enhanced minigraph parser to parse interface name associated with static route nexthop
Why I did:-
One of the use case to support interface name is Chassis Packet. For Chassis Packet we have Static Routes configured to route traffic across line-card. If the FRR programs static route without the interface name then in case if the ip interface that is associated with the nexthop goes down FRR resolves static route nexthop over the default route as we have FRR config
ip nht-resolve-via-defaultwhich causes undesired behavior. Having interface name with Static Route prevents recursive lookup on default route.How I verify: