Comment 17 for bug 1577488

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?