4 One of the nice things about network namespaces is that they allow one
5 to easily create and test complex environments.
7 Unfortunately, these namespaces can not be used with actual switching
8 ASICs, as their ports can not be migrated to other network namespaces
9 (NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL) and most of them probably do not support the
10 L1-separation provided by namespaces.
12 However, a similar kind of flexibility can be achieved by using VRFs and
13 by looping the switch ports together. For example:
20 192.0.2.1/24 + + + + 192.0.2.2/24
26 The VRFs act as lightweight namespaces representing hosts connected to
29 This approach for testing switch ASICs has several advantages over the
30 traditional method that requires multiple physical machines, to name a
33 1. Only the device under test (DUT) is being tested without noise from
36 2. Ability to easily provision complex topologies. Testing bridging
37 between 4-ports LAGs or 8-way ECMP requires many physical links that are
38 not always available. With the VRF-based approach one merely needs to
41 These tests are written with switch ASICs in mind, but they can be run
42 on any Linux box using veth pairs to emulate physical loopbacks.
44 Guidelines for Writing Tests
45 ============================
47 o Where possible, reuse an existing topology for different tests instead
48 of recreating the same topology.
49 o Tests that use anything but the most trivial topologies should include
50 an ASCII art showing the topology.
51 o Where possible, IPv6 and IPv4 addresses shall conform to RFC 3849 and
52 RFC 5737, respectively.
53 o Where possible, tests shall be written so that they can be reused by
54 multiple topologies and added to lib.sh.
55 o Checks shall be added to lib.sh for any external dependencies.
56 o Code shall be checked using ShellCheck [1] prior to submission.
58 1. https://www.shellcheck.net/