Sergey Fomin

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think it makes too much sense to keep the two (redundant/conflicting) methods in the long term, and the usual procedure of marking...

I'd be happy if we added the concept of NHGs to static-routes too! That makes a lot of sense. I think you guys support it as well? https://www.arista.com/en/um-eos/eos-nexthop-groups

@Pull-eckermann could you please elaborate on the original problem statement? >Creation of a BFD single-hop session subtree at interface level, so that BFD sessions can be created besides routing protocols,...

> the general benefit of these is if we end up with lots of sharing. yes, and I think we should allow that. > I don't see that we necessarily...

Looks like something went wrong with the git branch. the current github diff view shows 23 changed files. @abamberger-arista can you please resolve this for the final review?

I'd prefer to see new leafs added instead of changing the existing `source-address`/`destination-address`. Changing the type is a major, breaking change and, in my opinion, is not warranted in this...

I have the same comment as in the original PR: I don't believe the redistribution is a fundamentally correct approach to control mac/type-2 route distribution. It is an implementation of...

+1 to the implicit option. It is widely used in the industry. It's not clear to me what's the benefit of making the protocol mandatory. >We can see in CISCO...

Perhaps the type should be uint64 (gauge64?) or uint32.

>Such metric will be used as a metric in ISIS single-topology mode, and can be overridden by the specific metric defined under AF. No, that can't be done (the latter...