-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 658
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
Add static GUE encapsulation #1234
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Dan, thanks for the contribution! I'm not sure that this should be modelled this way. A few concerns:
Happy to discuss further. |
I see the discussion in #1208 that covered the objection to this being in If this is always going to be specified via a static route -- then I suggest that we have this configured under the static routing sections of the model. I'd like to understand what the plan is to make this consistent with GRE encapsulation. (i.e., will we deprecate There's some history of how this is modelled here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GVzP6ZQFlvbZvdLSZnhYlwrL6AIaLJl-/view?usp=sharing |
I actually recommended to Dan that we create next-hop-groups at this level. I'm happy to entertain some other suggestion though? The intended concept is these user defined next-hop-groups are the static equivalent of gRIBI programmed next-hop-groups. User defined next-hop-groups (and their child next-hops) can be referenced by static-routes, policy-forwarding and generically anything that would set or reference (user defined) next-hop-groups. WDYT? |
/gcbrun |
No major YANG version changes in commit e68b038 |
I think this is quite messy. There are some implementation questions I have here (why not just inject these via gRIBI is one -- we can take this offline) -- but generally, I think that we don't have a general purpose way in existing implementations to create gRIBI-like NHGs+NHs that are re-used across protocols. Can we point to multiple implementations that look like this? I would prefer that we map this in a way that: a) makes it really clear what the entries that we are creating are and how they can be used, What is the specification that is being asked for here? Is it to require this to be re-used across |
Change Scope
next-hop-groups
andnext-hops
under network instance to mimic existing AFT tree. This will allow systems to configure these in a network instance.Platform Implementations
Tree view
Flatten view