contributed by Cisco. VIRL runs on physical baremetal servers hosted by LF FD.io
project. All tests are executed in two node logical test topology - Traffic
Generator (TG) node and Systems Under Test (SUT1) node connected in a loop.
-Logical test topology is shown in the figure below.::
-
- +------------------------+
- | |
- | +------------------+ |
- +---------------> <--------------+
- | | | | | |
- | |------------> DUT1 <-----------+ |
- | | | +------------------+ | | |
- | | | | | |
- | | | SUT1 | | |
- | | +------------------------+ | |
- | | | |
- | | | |
- | | +-----------+ | |
- | +---------------> <---------------+ |
- | | TG | |
- +------------------> <------------------+
- +-----------+
+Logical test topology is shown in the figure below.
+
+.. only:: latex
+
+ .. raw:: latex
+
+ \begin{figure}[H]
+ \centering
+ \graphicspath{{../_tmp/src/vpp_performance_tests/}}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{logical-2n-nic2nic}
+ \label{fig:logical-2n-nic2nic}
+ \end{figure}
+
+.. only:: html
+
+ .. figure:: logical-2n-nic2nic.svg
+ :alt: logical-2n-nic2nic
+ :align: center
SUT1 is a VM (Ubuntu or Centos, depending on the test suite), TG is a Traffic
Generator (TG, another Ubuntu VM). SUTs run Honeycomb and VPP SW applications
Functional Tests Coverage
-------------------------
-The following Honeycomb functional test areas are included in the CSIT |release|
+The following Honeycomb functional test areas are included in the |csit-release|
with results listed in this report:
- **Basic interface management** - CRUD for interface state,
- Netconf/Restconf northbound over IPv6
- Test case count: 12
-Total 219 Honeycomb functional tests in the CSIT |release|.
+Total 219 Honeycomb functional tests in the |csit-release|.
Operational data in Honeycomb should mirror configuration data at all times.
Because of this, test cases follow this general pattern:
Functional Tests Naming
-----------------------
-CSIT |release| introduced a common structured naming convention for all
+CSIT-17.01 introduced a common structured naming convention for all
performance and functional tests. This change was driven by substantially
growing number and type of CSIT test cases. Firstly, the original practice did
not always follow any strict naming convention. Secondly test names did not