Shashank-arista

I am facing a similar issue here: https://github.com/openconfig/public/issues/1140

> I would propose to align this with the [AFT model](https://github.com/openconfig/public/blob/c00868ed96e8e48993e26d8fba20f093722c0e39/release/models/aft/openconfig-aft.yang) and introduce the concept of next-hop-groups. cc @robshakir, any thoughts on this? > > Also, I'm not entirely clear...

> 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...

> 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?...

> w.r.t `next-hop-groups` -- the general benefit of these is if we end up with lots of sharing. I don't see that we necessarily must have the same approach between...

> Should this also deprecate the following leafs? This way it's clear the preferred way to configure any/all LSP's is via the next-hops/next-hop subtree. > > ``` > | |...

> Reviewed with OC Operators on July 30,2024. The following names were proposed. We'll leave this open a couple more days and then should choose one: > > Ideas to...

> > > Reviewed with OC Operators on July 30,2024. The following names were proposed. We'll leave this open a couple more days and then should choose one: > >...

> Regarding operational use case, Google and others on the Operator group voiced support that this is a real use case in use. > > Regarding multiple vendor implementations, it...

> Last call for comment Aug 20th, 2024 Gentle reminder!