[test plan] Test plan for BGP scale test by w1nda · Pull Request #15702 · sonic-net/sonic-mgmt

w1nda · 2024-11-22T09:28:10Z

Description of PR

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
This test plan is to test if control/data plane can handle the initialization/flapping of numerous BGP session holding a lot routes, and estimate the impact on it.

Related PRs:

PR title	State	Context
[bgp-scale-test] Implement bgp scale test cases for sessions flapping, unisolation, nexthop group member change scenarios
[testbed] announce routes with routes generation switch, aggregate routes and variable ipv6 address pattern
[isolated-topo] disable ipv4 routes generation, add mocked aggregated addresses

Type of change

Bug fix
Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
Test case(new/improvement)

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

With numerous BGP sessions holding a lot routes, any flapping on BGP sessions or routes cloud have more overhead on device, to verify the functionality and estimate convergence time, we publish this test plan.

How did you do it?

Describe three test scenarios and introduce how we measure time in test.

How did you verify/test it?

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

…gp-high-scale-test-plan

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

mssonicbld · 2024-12-19T14:20:05Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2024-12-19T14:20:14Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2024-12-19T14:30:24Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2024-12-19T14:30:34Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2024-12-19T14:32:23Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2024-12-19T14:32:32Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

r12f · 2024-12-23T23:25:05Z

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

+# Setup Configuration
+The count of routes from BGP peers is vital, we will leverage exabpg to advertise routes to all BGP peers, and those routes be be advertised to device under test finally.
+
+When DUT is T0, via exabgp, firstly, we will advertise 511 routes with prefix length 120 to all peer T1 devices for simulating downstream routes (VLAN IPv6 addresses of T0s), secondly, we will dvertise 15 routes with prefix length 64 to all peer T1 devices for simulating upstream routes (Aggregated IPv6 addresses of T0s' VLAN on T2s), finally, the DUT T0 will receive those routes from BGP peers.


it might be better to say - for each neighbor, we will advertise 1k routes in total: 512 /120 and 512 /128.

we will skip the T2 ones here. they won't make difference but can cause a lot confusions.

Because we have 1 /120 and 1/128 on T0 DUT, I think the routes count are 511 /120 plus 511 /128, right?

It's 511 or 512?

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

mssonicbld · 2024-12-24T09:10:15Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2024-12-24T09:10:24Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2024-12-25T08:44:03Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2024-12-25T08:44:10Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

r12f · 2024-12-27T00:22:46Z

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

+Detail route scale is described in below table:
+| Topology Type                              | BGP Routes Count      | BGP Nexthop Group Count | BGP Nexthop Group Members Count |
+| ------------------------------------------ | --------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------- |
+| t0-isolated-d2u254s1, t0-isolated-d2u254s2 |  254 * ( 511 + 511 )  | 254                     | 254                             |


The huge next hop count is not what the topology will provide by default, but the mgmt test cases would do. We should move them down to the mgmt test, but provide the default numbers here.

Or we can make a new table showing the test as the requirement of Nexthop Group Member Scale Test.

When we deploy testbed, the script will setup route by default, and there are parameters in topo like: podset_number, tor_number, tor_subnet_number to control the routes scale, so routes in this table is default for each topology.

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

sulrich-nexthop · 2025-01-14T19:21:09Z

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

+# Route Configuration Setup
+The count of routes from BGP peers is vital, we will leverage exabpg to advertise routes to all BGP peers, and those routes be be advertised to device under test finally.
+
+When DUT is T0, via exabgp, we will advertise 511 routes with prefix length 120 and 511 rotues with prefix length 128 to each neighbor T1 devices. The prefixes with length 120 are mocking VLAN address on downstream T0s, and the prefixes with length 128 are mocking loopback address on downstream T0s.


just to clarify my understanding of the text here.

when the DUT is a T0 - the expectation is that all of the T1 (emulated) are reflecting the same collection of /120 and /128 prefix announcements for a resulting prefix count on the T0 DUT of ~1022 prefixes spread over 256/512 NHs. correct?

mssonicbld · 2025-01-15T11:58:51Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-01-15T11:59:00Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

sm-xu · 2025-02-18T06:52:37Z

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md

+### Steps
+1. Shut down all ports on device. (shut down T1 sessions ports on T0 DUT, shut down T0 sesssions ports on T1 DUT.)
+1. Wait for routes are stable.
+1. Start and keep sending packets with all routes to all portes via ptf.


typo: portes => ports :-)

fixed, thanks

mssonicbld · 2025-02-19T08:29:40Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-02-19T08:29:47Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2025-05-06T06:16:56Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-06T06:17:04Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2025-05-09T07:29:15Z

Cherry-pick PR to msft-202412: Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#259

…or sessions flapping, unisolation, nexthop group member change scenarios (sonic-net#258)  ### Description of PR  Summary: Fixes # (issue) Implement test plan sonic-net#15702. Add test cases to test if control/data plane can handle the initialization/flapping of numerous BGP session holding a lot routes, and estimate the impact on it. ### Type of change  - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement) - [x] Test case(new/improvement) ### Back port request - [ ] 202012 - [ ] 202205 - [ ] 202305 - [ ] 202311 - [ ] 202405 ### Approach #### What is the motivation for this PR? With numerous BGP sessions holding a lot routes, any flapping on BGP sessions or routes cloud have more overhead on device, we need test cases to verify the functionality and estimate convergence time, we publish this test plan. #### How did you do it? Implement sessions flapping test, unisolation test and nexthop group member scale test #### How did you verify/test it? #### Any platform specific information? #### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? ### Documentation

What is the motivation for this PR? With numerous BGP sessions holding a lot routes, any flapping on BGP sessions or routes cloud have more overhead on device, to verify the functionality and estimate convergence time, we publish this test plan. How did you do it? Describe three test scenarios and introduce how we measure time in test. Signed-off-by: opcoder0 <110003254+opcoder0@users.noreply.github.com>

What is the motivation for this PR? With numerous BGP sessions holding a lot routes, any flapping on BGP sessions or routes cloud have more overhead on device, to verify the functionality and estimate convergence time, we publish this test plan. How did you do it? Describe three test scenarios and introduce how we measure time in test. Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <amalkin@nvidia.com>

What is the motivation for this PR? With numerous BGP sessions holding a lot routes, any flapping on BGP sessions or routes cloud have more overhead on device, to verify the functionality and estimate convergence time, we publish this test plan. How did you do it? Describe three test scenarios and introduce how we measure time in test. Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>

w1nda added 2 commits November 22, 2024 09:20

init

bd9174d

Merge remote-tracking branch 'github/bgp-high-scale-test-plan' into b…

9ec53f7

…gp-high-scale-test-plan

w1nda requested review from wangxin and yxieca as code owners November 22, 2024 09:28

w1nda requested review from Blueve and r12f and removed request for wangxin and yxieca November 22, 2024 09:28

w1nda commented Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

w1nda mentioned this pull request Dec 13, 2024

[bgp-scale-test] Implement bgp scale test cases for sessions flapping, unisolation, nexthop group member change scenarios #16069

Merged

8 tasks

r12f reviewed Dec 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

r12f reviewed Dec 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md Show resolved Hide resolved

rename topo name, add topo pics, add new section scale description

2b4603c

update image size

b191e21

w1nda force-pushed the bgp-high-scale-test-plan branch from 4c1c003 to b191e21 Compare December 19, 2024 14:32

r12f reviewed Dec 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

r12f reviewed Dec 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

docs/testplan/BGP-Scale-Test.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

update

f4dc3d9

refine test case description

dbb2477

r12f added the Request for msft-202412 Branch label Dec 27, 2024

r12f reviewed Dec 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

zhangyanzhao assigned wangxin Jan 8, 2025

sulrich-nexthop reviewed Jan 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

update objective

16928f7

sm-xu reviewed Feb 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Update routes selection in Nexthop Group Member Scale Test

4cced59

r12f approved these changes Apr 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Blueve previously approved these changes May 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix topo

4b491be

w1nda dismissed Blueve’s stale review via 4b491be May 6, 2025 06:16

Blueve approved these changes May 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Blueve merged commit f65f2e6 into sonic-net:master May 7, 2025
4 checks passed

zhangyanzhao moved this from 📋 In Plan Features to ✅ Done in SONiC 202505 Release May 9, 2025

r12f added the Approved for msft-202412 Branch label May 9, 2025

mssonicbld mentioned this pull request May 9, 2025

[action] [PR:15702] [test plan] Test plan for BGP scale test Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#259

Merged

8 tasks

mssonicbld added the Created PR to msft-202412 Branch label May 9, 2025

mssonicbld added Included in msft-202412 Branch and removed Created PR to msft-202412 Branch labels May 9, 2025

Conversation

w1nda commented Nov 22, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description of PR

Type of change

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

How did you do it?

How did you verify/test it?

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Dec 24, 2024

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Dec 24, 2024

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Dec 25, 2024

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Dec 25, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

w1nda Jan 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Feb 19, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Feb 19, 2025

w1nda commented Nov 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

w1nda Jan 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading