Create README FOR MPLS2-2 #3460
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11251568803Details
💛 - Coveralls |
|
should we abandon #3106 and just review this one? |
Yes let'sgo for this Pull Request for MPLS-2.2 |
dplore
previously approved these changes
Sep 27, 2024
dplore
reviewed
Sep 27, 2024
Comment on lines
106
to
109
| ## Config paths | ||
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/next-hop: | ||
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/incoming-label: | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ## Config paths | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/next-hop: | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/incoming-label: | |
| ## Config paths | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/protocols/protocol/static-routes/config/prefix | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/protocols/protocol/static-routes/config/index: | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/protocols/protocol/static-routes/next-hops/next-hop/config/next-hop: | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/name: | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/next-hop: | |
| /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/incoming-label: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey Daren,
Those paths are not invalid OCPaths
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry about that! Note, in future you can find and correct these yourself by searching at https://openconfig.net/projects/models/paths/
Here's my suggestion though:
/network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/incoming-label
/network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/next-hop
/network-instances/network-instance/protocols/protocol/static-routes/static/config/prefix
/network-instances/network-instance/protocols/protocol/static-routes/static/next-hops/next-hop/config/next-hop
/network-instances/network-instance/protocols/protocol/static-routes/static/next-hops/next-hop/config/index
dplore
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Validate static LSP functionality with BGP resolved next-hop. This test verifies that the DUT can forward MPLS traffic based on a static LSP that uses a next-hop resolved via BGP.
This is to update this PR #3106 (comment) comments