Comment 17 for bug 1577488
Revision history for this message
| Armando Migliaccio (armando-migliaccio) wrote | #17 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
My last understanding is as such:
a) no api changes are required to address this use case
b) fast exit will have to be addressed with a combination of address/scope and BGP
c) changes are required in L3 to make DVR routers fast-exist capable
d) this RFE unveiled a conflict between ext-gw-modes and address-scope extensions. We'd need to document the conflict and ensure that if a user is trying to use them together, he/she is properly alerted of the conflict.
On this basis, this RFE would be granted approval, but I am not sure if the level of implementation details is necessary for a spec. Probably a devref.
Thoughts?