ClausHolbechArista
commented
7 months ago Thank you for a great idea! I think the simplest implementation would be to have a root-level key for defining the access-lists centrally and then adding them as needed to the devices. Similar to evpn_vlan_bundles.
At first we would have to ignore missing access lists, to be non-breaking, but in the next major release of AVD (5.0) we could error out if the access_group_in/out keys are pointing to a missing ACL.
theotherguy2175
github-actions[bot]
gmuloc
Enhancement summary
It would be nice when defining a L3 / SVI in network services to also be able to add an access group right there. That was the tags take care of only adding the L3/SVI as it already does but also only add the access group to the devices that need it.
Which component of AVD is impacted
eos_designs
Use case example
It would be nice when defining a L3 / SVI in network services to also be able to add an access group right there. That was the tags take care of only adding the L3/SVI as it already does but also only add the access group to the devices that need it. in-network
Describe the solution you would like
It would be nice when defining a L3 / SVI in network services to also be able to add an access group right there. That was the tags take care of only adding the L3/SVI as it already does but also only add the access group to the devices that need it. in-network
Describe alternatives you have considered
No response
Additional context
No response
Contributing Guide