[quagga-users 14666] Re: Question on testing implementations

On 18/04/17 18:53, Alexis Rosen wrote:
> I was traveling when this was written or I'd have replied sooner.
> 
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Jonathan C Day <imipak-/[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm curious as to the current methods used to test implementations, given the difficulty in even keeping track of standards tweaks for BGP. Is it strictly to standard (the typical protocol engineer's approach) or are there accepted reference implementations people use to look for interoperability?
>>
>> I'm asking in part because I'm interested in the IS-IS extension that hasn't made it into mainline as far as I can tell. If I want to see if it'll do what I want, given the rarity of the protocol, should I be hunting down a commercial router to validate against or be dusting off my Indiana Jones cosplay gear in order to validate against GateD 3.6?
> 
> With that last sentence you win the internet for April 7th. Your prize will be coming as soon as a trophy can be delivered over TCP/IP.

Could you make a small one and piggyback on an RFC 1149 link?

> (Sorry I don't have any actually helpful response...)

I have a partially helpful response, check out https://frrouting.org/
which is a Quagga fork that has merged in IS-IS, as well as a bunch of
other features. They also have some test results from
https://www.opensourcerouting.org/test-results/ who note they are open
to requests for specific test results.

https://frrouting.org/test-results/ISIS_extended_results.pdf
https://frrouting.org/test-results/ISISV6_extended_results.pdf

Changes from quagga are listed here:
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/wiki/Quagga-1.1-%E2%86%92-FRR-2.0
With changes for the upcoming version here:
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/wiki/FRR-2.0-%E2%86%92-FRR-3.0

-- 
James Andrewartha
Network & Projects Engineer
Christ Church Grammar School
Claremont, Western Australia
Ph. (08) 9442 1757
Mob. 0424 160 877