Comment 8 for bug 1848392

I think your situation is part of what we need to figure out for the future spec. To make sure that it's clear to Juju what should be happening when you CMR the E and P applications we should be setup such that either the offer of the CMR is aware of P and E? or That the consume side presents information such that Juju can understand that E and P are routable, etc.

The couple of issues is that a relation doesn't necessitate a network traffic setup and the network understandings should be in place when an application is deployed so that we make sure the machine is setup with the interfaces it needs. This is a weakness of the "offer an endpoint on a space" because it would be easy to not have a machine setup able to do that since offering in CMR comes later in the process than a deploy.

If P and E are routable, and share ingress/egress are they actually the same space in Juju's world? Should we allow the operator to add P to the spaces definition even though none of the applications in the model are leveraging that subnet? Does that give us the connective tissue we need in your proposed scenario?