There is no connectivity by using the proposed srv6 path.
> From Carmine:
> This seg6-route tells rt1 to steer packets destined to fc00:0:9::1 over this path: rt1->rt2->-rt6.
> This path is not correct. Since we are installing this seg6-route on rt1,
> it means that a packet matching this seg6-route has already reached rt1.
> So rt1 should not be part of the path.
> The correct path should be rt2->rt6.
Fix this by changing the proposed seg6 route. Also, the ping test should
be swapped, because invalidating the RT1 locator does not have any
impacts on the built SRv6 path.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
It's just annoying when the linter tells to apply the formatting for the code
you didn't touch.
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
Add a new topotest `isis_srv6_topo1` for verifying SRv6 functionalities
in IS-IS (RFC 9352).
This topotest consists of nine tests:
* Network convergence after applying SRv6 configuration
* Disable SRv6 Locator on zebra on r1
* Enable SRv6 Locator on zebra on r1
* Disable SRv6 Locator on ISIS on r1
* Enable SRv6 Locator on ISIS on r1
* Disable SRv6 on ISIS on r1
* Enable SRv6 on ISIS on r1
* Disable SRv6 on zebra on r1
* Enable SRv6 on zebra on r1
Signed-off-by: Carmine Scarpitta <carmine.scarpitta@uniroma2.it>
