[show] add new CLI to show tunnel route objects

[zjswhhh]

What I did

Add new CLI support to show tunnel route objects in ASIC DB.

sign-off: Jing Zhang [email protected]

How I did it

• Check if tunnel route object exists for server_ipv4, server_ipv6, soc_ipv4. If existing, print it out.
• If not specifying port name, print all tunnel route objects.

How to verify it

• Added unit tests.
• Tested on dual testbeds:
  • show mux tunnel-route Ethernet140

     PORT         DEST_TYPE    DEST_ADDRESS    
     -----------  -----------  ---------------  
     Ethernet140  server_ipv4  192.168.0.29/32  
    

  • show mux tunnel-route --json Ethernet140

     {
         "TUNNEL_ROUTE": {
             "Ethernet140": {
                 "server_ipv4": {
                     "DEST": "192.168.0.29/32"
                 }
             }
         }
     }
    

Previous command output (if the output of a command-line utility has changed)

New command output (if the output of a command-line utility has changed)

[prsunny]

I tent to disagree with this change. First of all, Nexthop ID doesn't convey any meaningful information. Secondly, just "ip route show 192.168.0.29/32" will display if its tunnel or non-tunnel route.

[zjswhhh]

I tent to disagree with this change. First of all, Nexthop ID doesn't convey any meaningful information. Secondly, just "ip route show 192.168.0.29/32" will display if its tunnel or non-tunnel route.

Hi Prince - Yes ip route show will have that information. It's just recently we have been doing static active-active (forcing both ToR to be active) on active-standby dualToRs, and to verify the tunnel route is removed, I first need to get server ip and then check the route. So I wanted to add a CLI to check in batches. But it's not a must-have.

[lgtm-com]

This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 6609452 into c7389bd - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

• 1 for Unused local variable

[prsunny]

I tent to disagree with this change. First of all, Nexthop ID doesn't convey any meaningful information. Secondly, just "ip route show 192.168.0.29/32" will display if its tunnel or non-tunnel route.

Hi Prince - Yes ip route show will have that information. It's just recently we have been doing static active-active (forcing both ToR to be active) on active-standby dualToRs, and to verify the tunnel route is removed, I first need to get server ip and then check the route. So I wanted to add a CLI to check in batches. But it's not a must-have.

Agree, but was there an issue observed in transition that a tunnel route is not removed? I mean in active-active, there should not be any tunnel route. Just want to understand the motivation.

[zjswhhh]

I tent to disagree with this change. First of all, Nexthop ID doesn't convey any meaningful information. Secondly, just "ip route show 192.168.0.29/32" will display if its tunnel or non-tunnel route.

Hi Prince - Yes ip route show will have that information. It's just recently we have been doing static active-active (forcing both ToR to be active) on active-standby dualToRs, and to verify the tunnel route is removed, I first need to get server ip and then check the route. So I wanted to add a CLI to check in batches. But it's not a must-have.

Agree, but was there an issue observed in transition that a tunnel route is not removed? I mean in active-active, there should not be any tunnel route. Just want to understand the motivation.

There wasn't an issue like that. But show mux status is reflecting xcvrd/ycabled status only, and in current stage we don't care much about that, we want to have a quick way to confirm ToR is in active mode, in other words the tunnel route is removed.

[prsunny]

lgtm

[qiluo-msft]

This commit could not be cleanly cherry-picked to 202012. Please submit another PR.

[liuh-80]

Cherry-pick PR merged: #2659