SRv6 dataplane test for counter and crm and 128 my sids by echuawu · Pull Request #18173 · sonic-net/sonic-mgmt

echuawu · 2025-04-29T08:25:24Z

Description of PR

Including configuration and function coverage:

1.Auto generate 128 SRv6 locators and sids
2.Auto generate 128 matching packets
2.1.Test DIP shift
2.2.Test uSID container copy action
2.3.Test USD flavor
2.4.Test DSCP mapping
2.5.Test ttl and hop limit change
3.Split SRH and non SRH packets test into two test cases required by MSFT
3.1.Test reboot and BGP restart test randomly to save time
4.Test SRv6 counter
5.Test SRv6 CRM resource
6.Add static route for 128 sids validation
7.Add check for route asic db installation
8.Add timeout when captureing packet to override large scale of BGP update packets affection

This PR should be merged after the design PRs merged:

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

Enhance the SRv6 test coverage for the counter and CRM and 128 my sids

How did you do it?

Add validations for SRv6 counter and CRM and 128 my sids

How did you verify/test it?

Run it in local setup

Any platform specific information?

Mellanox SPC4 and later platforms

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

Documentation

mssonicbld · 2025-04-29T08:25:31Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-04-29T08:25:43Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-04-29T08:26:12Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-04-29T08:26:24Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-04-29T08:27:06Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-04-29T08:27:18Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

tests/srv6/test_srv6_dataplane.py

mssonicbld · 2025-05-06T10:57:39Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-06T10:57:52Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

nhe-NV · 2025-05-18T00:58:25Z

@r12f can you help to review and merge it?

r12f · 2025-05-18T01:07:41Z

Hi @nhe-NV , thanks for the PR. Looks like Swss one is not merged yet, so from your description, this one needs to wait.

mssonicbld · 2025-05-28T05:17:07Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-28T05:17:20Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-05-28T05:19:36Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-28T05:19:48Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

r12f · 2025-05-28T17:34:58Z

tests/srv6/srv6_utils.py

-        ['locator_8', '2001:4001:800::'],
-        ['locator_9', '2001:5000:900::'],
-        ['locator_10', '2001:5001:a00::']
+        [f'locator_{i + 1}', f'{ROUTE_BASE}:{1001 + i}:{1 + i}::', f'{1 + i}'] for i in range(LOCATOR_NUM)


we need all uSID being allocated under a single locator. do you mind to update the test case?

Hi @r12f , do you mean the same requirement as @BYGX-wcr stated, use the same "locator block" here? From my understand, locator contains locator block and locator node, just double confirm.

yes, they are the same. : D

BYGX-wcr · 2025-05-28T17:38:02Z

tests/srv6/srv6_utils.py

-        ['locator_8', '2001:4001:800::'],
-        ['locator_9', '2001:5000:900::'],
-        ['locator_10', '2001:5001:a00::']
+        [f'locator_{i + 1}', f'{ROUTE_BASE}:{1001 + i}:{1 + i}::', f'{1 + i}'] for i in range(LOCATOR_NUM)


Please keep the whole block locator unchanged here.

Hi @BYGX-wcr , per my understanding, you are refering this part "{ROUTE_BASE}:{1001 + i}" to be a fixed value, like "{ROUTE_BASE}:1001", please correct me if there is misunderstanding.

yes, keep the first /32 the same for all the locators.

mssonicbld · 2025-05-29T02:44:50Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-29T02:45:02Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-05-29T02:45:50Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-29T02:46:02Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-05-29T02:49:25Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-05-29T02:49:37Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

BYGX-wcr · 2025-05-30T21:19:20Z

tests/srv6/conftest.py

+    )
+
+
+@pytest.fixture(scope="class", params=['srh', 'no_srh'])


Is this supposed to be specified using CLI option?

ok, would update it accordingly.

BYGX-wcr · 2025-05-30T21:21:42Z

tests/srv6/test_srv6_dataplane.py

    def use_param(self, prepare_param):
        self.params = prepare_param

+    def _validate_bgp_session(self, duthost):


why do we need to validate BGP sessions?

We always use checking function instead of pure sleep, it always save time for us.

BYGX-wcr · 2025-05-30T21:24:05Z

tests/srv6/test_srv6_dataplane.py

+
+            with allure.step('Validate SRv6 function after BGP restart'):
+
+                with allure.step('Execute BGP restart'):


BGP restart should be a type of the reboot as well. Basically, there are three types of scenarios where SRv6 functions will get reset: reboot/config_reload/BGP_restart

Do you suggest to move the bgp restart into the step of 'Execute reboot test'?

echuawu · 2025-06-03T14:36:00Z

Closed this PR by mistake, please check the new PR #18775, @BYGX-wcr and @r12f , all the comments had been updated.

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from 35f63bd to 76a0aec Compare April 29, 2025 08:26

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from 76a0aec to 4bfa970 Compare April 29, 2025 08:26

Yakiv-Huryk requested a review from BYGX-wcr April 29, 2025 08:35

nhe-NV removed the request for review from BYGX-wcr April 30, 2025 13:12

nhe-NV approved these changes Apr 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

BYGX-wcr reviewed Apr 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/srv6/test_srv6_dataplane.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/srv6/test_srv6_dataplane.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from 4bfa970 to 33af006 Compare May 6, 2025 10:57

BYGX-wcr approved these changes May 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

nhe-NV added Request for 202505 branch Request for msft-202412 Branch labels May 20, 2025

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from 33af006 to f25cd5d Compare May 28, 2025 05:16

mssonicbld added the Cherry Pick Conflict_msft-202412 label May 28, 2025

mssonicbld removed the Cherry Pick Conflict_msft-202412 label May 28, 2025

echuawu changed the title ~~SRv6 dataplane test for counter and crm~~ SRv6 dataplane test for counter and crm and 128 my sids May 28, 2025

zhangyanzhao requested a review from r12f May 28, 2025 16:44

r12f reviewed May 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

BYGX-wcr reviewed May 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from 60d9fca to e802a0a Compare May 29, 2025 02:44

mssonicbld added the Cherry Pick Conflict_msft-202412 label May 29, 2025

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from e166130 to 152fc8f Compare May 29, 2025 02:49

mssonicbld removed the Cherry Pick Conflict_msft-202412 label May 29, 2025

BYGX-wcr reviewed May 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

echuawu closed this Jun 3, 2025

echuawu force-pushed the srv6_counter_crm branch from 152fc8f to a6cce68 Compare June 3, 2025 14:16

r12f removed the Request for msft-202412 Branch label Jun 11, 2025


		with allure.step('Validate SRv6 function after BGP restart'):

		with allure.step('Execute BGP restart'):

Conversation

echuawu commented Apr 29, 2025 • 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!

mssonicbld commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented May 6, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented May 6, 2025

Uh oh!

nhe-NV commented May 18, 2025

Uh oh!

r12f commented May 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented May 28, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented May 28, 2025

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented May 29, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented May 29, 2025

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

echuawu commented Apr 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

r12f commented May 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading