Comment 23 for bug 1577488

We skipped this one in yesterday's Drivers' meeting because of the ongoing discussion between Ryan and Armando.

@Armando, I got the opposite impression. It seemed that consensus was leaning toward it not being that important to guarantee symmetric routing but BGP could give the operator the option to keep it symmetric. But, there still might be some thinking to do for how this might affect something like lbaas.

As for the "conflict" between address scopes and enable_snat, ... Basically matching address scopes supersede enable_snat, rendering it irrelevant. I don't see it as a conflict but a feature that just needs to be documented. But, I agree with Armando that it should be documented. We could alert the user somehow, I guess. How would that be accomplished?