Martin - Thanks for your testing!
donald On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Martin Winter <[email protected] > wrote: > Everything below applies to latest proposed-5 branch as on Savannah, > Git commit 496325d91 (as of Nov 25) > > First of all, this took way longer than what I’ve expected. > The change of the default in BGP caused me to loose basically a week of > testing… > > As some background: I’m using Ixia ANVL for testing and this software has > it’s own > IP stack - and sends very specific and controlled packets, i.e. there is > no such thing > as TCP retransmission in it (It would detect something like this as a > failure) and > it won’t negotiate about timers - it expects them to be as configured in > the test setup. > > I’ve now adapted all (or at least most) of my tests to deal with this > change (i.e. for the BGP > timers, I’m going to configure them now in the test script instead of > assuming some value) > > Anyway, I’m quite certain that all the new BGP failures are based on the > change of the timers. > OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, ISIS IPv4, RIP and RIPNG look ok > > On ISIS IPv6, there is one new failure where I do believe that ANVL is > wrong (ANVL > checking the wrong LSP) > > Basically, I think Proposed-5 branch is good (from my side) to be merged > into Master. > > Regards, > Martin Winter > [email protected] > > > Results are updated at > > https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8W_T0dxQfwxSHR6UGk4RDFteEk&usp=sharing > > > > On 25 Nov 2015, at 3:40, Martin Winter wrote: > > Latest round of proposed-5 is basically equal. >> >> Results are here: >> >> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8W_T0dxQfwxSHR6UGk4RDFteEk&usp=sharing >> >> I’ll start with a git bisect on a few of the failures over the next day. >> Expect more details later this week. >> >> Regards, >> Martin Winter >> >> On 23 Nov 2015, at 19:55, Martin Winter wrote: >> >> Ok, here is the summary of the changes in test results for the proposed 5 >>> branch >>> (as of Nov 17, Git commit 5ab56c73 - so NOT CURRENT) >>> >>> BGP IPv4: 4 new failures, 4 new unpredictable (before all >>> passed) >>> BGP IPv4 AS4: No change >>> BGP IPv6: 18 new pass (before failed or unpredictable), 3 >>> new failures (before pass) >>> BGP IPv6 AS4: No change >>> OSPFv2 (IPv4): 1 new pass (before fail), 1 new fail, 1 new >>> unpredictable (before passed) >>> OSPFv3 (IPv6): 3 new pass (before unpredictable), 1 new unpredictable >>> (before pass) >>> ISIS IPv4: 2 new pass (before fail), 1 new pass (before >>> unpredictable) >>> ISIS IPv6: 2 new pass (before fail), 3 new fail (before >>> pass) >>> RIP (IPv4): no change >>> RIPNG (IPV6): 1 new pass (before unpredictable) >>> >>> Comparison is against the final accepted-4 branch (which should be same >>> as current >>> master - but I had no time yet to actually run the current master) >>> >>> I have not looked into details on the changes. I’ll start looking into >>> them >>> probably after the next update for the proposed 5 branch >>> (All my testbeds are currently busy running the current proposed 5 >>> branch) >>> >>> I’ll post updated spreadsheets online for everyone after the current >>> proposed 5 >>> branch is done with the testrun (expected by noon GMT on Wed) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Martin Winter >>> >>> >>> On 23 Nov 2015, at 13:58, Martin Winter wrote: >>> >>> Just as a heads up: >>>> >>>> I should have full RFC compliance results for proposed 5 as of git >>>> commit 5ab56c73c >>>> (Nov 17 - when the BSD and Solaris issue still existed) in approx >>>> another 6 hrs. >>>> >>>> Current version is started as well and results should be available in >>>> approx 36 hrs >>>> >>>> (Doesn’t mean that you need to wait - this is just a heads up for your >>>> planning) >>>> >>>> - Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23 Nov 2015, at 9:06, Donald Sharp wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul - >>>>> >>>>> I don't mind pushing them up, but I wanted to solve the issue that >>>>> Martin >>>>> has discovered about the FSM log message first if you don't mind? >>>>> >>>>> donald >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Donald Sharp wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently everything queued up is at: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/donaldsharp/quagga/tree/volatile/patch-tracking/5/proposed/ff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Can you push them to Savannah? >>>>>> >>>>>> Savannah doesn't allow non-ff updates of branches, so after a rebase >>>>>> of a >>>>>> published volatile branch you need to delete it and recreate (*never* >>>>>> do >>>>>> this for master). This is what I do: >>>>>> >>>>>> for H in deferred accepted rejected ; do >>>>>> git push quagga-gnu.org :refs/heads/volatile/patch-tracking/4/${H} >>>>>> git push quagga-gnu.org >>>>>> ${H}:refs/heads/volatile/patch-tracking/4/${H} >>>>>> done >>>>>> >>>>>> Where quagga-gnu.org is the remote I have defined: >>>>>> >>>>>> $ git remote -v | grep quagga-gnu >>>>>> quagga-gnu.org ssh://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/quagga.git (fetch) >>>>>> quagga-gnu.org ssh://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/quagga.git (push) >>>>>> >>>>>> Btw, you havn't carried forward the previous round's deferred branc? >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A >>>>>> Fortune: >>>>>> God, I ask for patience -- and I want it right now! >>>>>> >>>>>>
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
