Closed mirceaulinic closed 7 years ago
Yes, I will revisit this next week.
Alright, this one is fixed and ready to be reviewed @dbarrosop @ktbyers. Once this one gets merged, we can rerun the tests for the other pull requests pending in this release and they should pass.
@mirceaulinic One other comment...I think you should probably send the AS Numbers through the helper function in napalm_base helpers.
See: https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/pull/246/files
It looks like Juniper does support as-dot notation in some contexts (at least based on google search).
Also you might want to validate the version of IP address. This will help ensure that an IPv4 or IPv6 address is proper. Also see the same PR:
https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/pull/246/files
Those should both be in the released napalm-base now.
Pushed the changes as per @ktbyers's suggestion for the AS number: https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-junos/pull/155/commits/f68ac4dbb66b7749783ca75d43c743a86b7dcdf4 Regarding the IP version, on Junos there's no separation between IPv4 and IPv6 neighbors, they are all IP neighbors (which actually makes more sense). So we can't know in advance what version we should enforce for a neighbor.
CI broken, currently pending https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/pull/255
napalm-base 0.24.1 released, going to merge this into develop
, without pushing on PyPi.
As described in #154, for newer Junos, it is possible to get the instance name from the BGP neighbos, so we can enhance the implementation and reduce the run time by executing a single request fetching all BGP neighbors.