For feature Uplink: p2p vrfs, instead of utilizing "uplink_ipv4_pool," we should be capable of assigning a subnet per VRF under "tenant.vrfs" for point-to-point subinterface links.

Spandanaarista commented 6 months ago

Enhancement summary

Instead of reusing IPs for different VRFs under sub-interfaces from the uplink_ipv4_pool, utilizing different subnets for different VRFs would eliminate the confusion associated with IP reuse.

Which component of AVD is impacted

eos_designs

Use case example

We aim to implement "Uplink: p2p vrfs" for a customer's Core connections to various L3LS fabric border leaf switches. This involves utilizing sub-interface point-to-point links for different VRFs, thereby streamlining the configuration of numerous L3 interfaces under network services.

Describe the solution you would like

Having the capability to allocate separate IP pools for different VRFs would facilitate the usage of distinct IP subnets, enhancing operational clarity.

Describe alternatives you have considered

Organizing multiple sub-interfaces with the "l3_interfaces" keys under network services for all VRFs in tenant files, for each VRF, connection, and sub-interface.

Additional context

No response

Contributing Guide

[X] I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

ClausHolbechArista commented 5 months ago

We would not be able to use a pool defined under tenants for uplinks. Since nodes can have overlapping IDs, we need to handle such pools within the node type settings. so ex:

l3leaf:
  defaults:
    uplink_type: p2p-vrfs
    uplink_pools:
      - ipv4_pool: <ipv4_network/mask>
        vrf: VRF1
      - ipv4_pool: <ipv4_network/mask>
        vrf: VRF2
      - ipv4_pool: <ipv4_network/mask>
        vrf: VRF3

The behavior should be to fall back to the regular uplink_pool if the pool is not set for a given VRF.

Spandanaarista commented 5 months ago

Apologies for the delay in responding. This seems promising, provided that we can accommodate different IPs per VRFs.

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. The issue will be reviewed by a maintainer and may be closed

aristanetworks / avd