[SRv6] Add support for SRv6 VPN#3293
Conversation
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-swss |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
shuaishang
force-pushed
the
project-phoenixwing-srv6-vpn
branch
from
87f3488 to
f24fa65
Compare
shuaishang
force-pushed
the
project-phoenixwing-srv6-vpn
branch
from
f24fa65 to
80b439d
Compare
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-swss |
|
Commenter does not have sufficient privileges for PR 3293 in repo sonic-net/sonic-swss |
|
/azp run Azure.sonic-swss |
|
Commenter does not have sufficient privileges for PR 3293 in repo sonic-net/sonic-swss |
shuaishang
force-pushed
the
project-phoenixwing-srv6-vpn
branch
from
afc1311 to
290102b
Compare
|
How is this related to #3123? Is there any dependency which one to go first? |
|
@prsunny @kperumalbfn @lguohan Can you help to review and close this PR? |
shuaishang
force-pushed
the
project-phoenixwing-srv6-vpn
branch
from
15400fb to
1d02012
Compare
|
@shuaishang could you rebase with the latest master branch and check all VS test failures. |
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| srv6_nh = k.is_srv6_nexthop(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we include VPN SID for the mismatch? I believe there shouldn't be any mix of NHs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no "vpn_sid" field in "APP_NEXTHOP_GROUP_TABLE_NAME" for nhgorch.
So don't need to check mismatch for VPN SID.
shuaishang
force-pushed
the
project-phoenixwing-srv6-vpn
branch
4 times, most recently
from
8c5b903 to
61fdcef
Compare
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
@abdosi please review and approve. |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
| // Previous added an temporary route | ||
| auto& tmp_next_hop = ctx.tmp_next_hop; | ||
| addRoutePost(ctx, tmp_next_hop); | ||
| if (tmp_next_hop.getSize() > 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this change related to SRv6? any issues with regular flow?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like it is to avoid the situation that addRoutePost() is invoked twice while addRoute() is called only once. For example, addTempRoute() called by addRoute() returns false before invoking addRoute() again, so the size of ctx.tmp_next_hop is zero, which is constructed by default. Without the condition if (tmp_next_hop.getSize() > 0), another addRoutePost() function call will be made, even though the addRoute() is called just once.
|
Cherry-pick PR to msft-202412: Azure/sonic-swss.msft#37 |
mssonicbld
added
Included in msft-202412 Branch
and removed
Created PR to msft-202412 Branch
labels
* [SRv6] Add support for SRv6 VPN (sonic-net#3293) What I did Implementation according to [HLD] SRv6 VPN HLD Why I did it This PR is to support SRv6 VPN functions How I verified it sonic-mgmt phoenix wing ptf test plan orchagent UT (tests/test_srv6.py) in this PR
* [SRv6] Add support for SRv6 VPN (sonic-net#3293) What I did Implementation according to [HLD] SRv6 VPN HLD Why I did it This PR is to support SRv6 VPN functions How I verified it sonic-mgmt phoenix wing ptf test plan orchagent UT (tests/test_srv6.py) in this PR Signed-off-by: Baorong Liu <96146196+baorliu@users.noreply.github.com>
12 participants
What I did
[HLD] SRv6 VPN HLD
Why I did it
This PR is to support SRv6 VPN functions
How I verified it
Details if related
Depends on sonic-swss-common#919