Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

iPerf: resolve ipv6 client pod deployment issue with a name format #812

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

elenagerman
Copy link
Contributor

Description

When the ipv6 address is used for traffic generation, and this is the only ip version defined for the server:
item.status.podIP getting ipv6 ip format value, "podIP": "fd01:0:0:6::bd" as an example
As a result, the client pod failed to start because of the name format failure; only '.' and '_' are acceptable in a name string (not ':').

Fixes

remove item.status.podIP variable from the name definition

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #812 (1be41bc) into master (0954437) will increase coverage by 0.30%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #812      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.17%   53.47%   +0.30%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         331      331              
==========================================
+ Hits          176      177       +1     
+ Misses        155      154       -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
gha 53.47% <ø> (+0.30%) ⬆️
python-3.9 53.47% <ø> (+0.30%) ⬆️
unit 53.47% <ø> (+0.30%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Aug 12, 2023

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the not_ready label Aug 12, 2023
@elenagerman
Copy link
Contributor Author

it is still relevant; the problem exists for single ipv6 openshift deployments and in case the openshift priority on ipv4 will change to the ipv6

@stale stale bot removed the not_ready label Aug 14, 2023
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 17, 2023

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the not_ready label Sep 17, 2023
@stale stale bot closed this Mar 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
not_ready ok to test Kick off our CI framework
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants