[action] [PR:12851] Fix m0-2vlan topo prefix_v6 value that causes route_check fail#12935
Merged
mssonicbld merged 1 commit intosonic-net:202311from May 22, 2024
Merged
Conversation
…-net#12851) Explicit zeros in prefix_v6 value causes issue in route_check. Need to use simplified form instead
8 tasks
Collaborator
Author
|
Original PR: #12851 |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description of PR
Summary: Explicit zeros in prefix_v6 value causes issue in route_check
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
The prefix_v6 value fc02:1000:0:0::1/64 is not simplified and at some point there is logic that populates APPL_DB INTF_TABLE with
fc02:1000:0:0::1/128based on this prefix_v6 value. However, for some reason the equivalent, simplified form of the APPL_DB entry is what appears in the ASIC_DB ROUTE_ENTRY_TABLE: fc02:1000::1/128. The route_check is not smart enough to recognize that fc02:1000:0:0::1/128 and fc02:1000::1/128 are equivalent and this causes the error.How did you do it?
Changed prefix_v6 value in the topo file to the simplified form
How did you verify/test it?
Verified route_check passes on Arista 720DT-48S
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation