This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 17, 2019. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
interfaces_ip primary IP check #206
Open
itdependsnetworks
wants to merge
3
commits into
napalm-automation:develop
Choose a base branch
from
itdependsnetworks:patch-1
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is no concept of primary or secondary ip on IPv6 so I'd hardcode this to
True
for simplicity.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting, so even when a router needs to source an IP, how does it choose which one?
Does it make sense not to include on IPv6 at all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a whole RFC for that (surprise!): https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724
Actually, IPv4 doesn't have the concept at all either. AFAICT only Cisco has the "secondary" keyword. Juniper certainly doesn't.
You are probably right. You will have to slightly adapt the test so it uses two different models; one for IPv4 and one for IPv6.