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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Update description for forwarding-viable #1032
Update description for forwarding-viable #1032
Changes from 12 commits
4da5f50
f088fa2
5f89788
6bc879b
f4099cf
9026779
d2a6ac2
634c496
7e01727
7e7c400
2101a8d
156d0a5
bad52da
e65449a
208eac1
9a2b1b3
0f1575a
367f4a7
097052f
846cee7
422f81e
2d5eb06
0679609
30f5332
1f577dd
af90d27
856d272
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
We should define what the expectation is for received L3 packets. I would guess the device is supposed to forward L3 packets, right? If yes, then stating something like the following might make this more clear?
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.
updated as per the internal doc, ptal.
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.
Hi Sach, this statement appears tailored for a protocol like IS-IS. The peer does not have to stop sending traffic to this device on the non-viable ports based on a timeout even if all the trunk members are not-viable. So, can we modify the statement to talk only about DUT and not enforce expectations on the peer? Specifically,
If you prefer, you can call out IS-IS as an example, where the timeout will happen.
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.
@nachikethas I have updated rule#3 to include other use cases, ptal