Configuration of VRF route targets inconsistent across platforms

[jbemmel]

For IOS and Dell OS10, VRF route targets are provisioned as part of initial.

For EOS, route targets are only configured if the BGP module is used and bgp.as is defined:

netlab/netsim/ansible/templates/vrf/eos.j2

Line 5 in 4d173dd

{% include 'eos.bgp.j2' %}

While it doesn't hurt to needlessly configure the route targets, it would be nice to have consistency. And if it were me, I'd prefer the EOS approach

As to why do I care: While working on VRF static route leaking for Dell OS10, it wasn't working yet and when I was comparing to EOS looking for differences this is one of the items.

[ipspace]

For IOS and Dell OS10, VRF route targets are provisioned as part of initial.

In many network operating systems, VRFs have to be defined before interface addresses as the ip vrf command removes the interface IP address.

For EOS, route targets are only configured if the BGP module is used and bgp.as is defined

Obviously EOS uses route targets only for route leaking. Is IOS the same? I don't want to find out ;)

While it doesn't hurt to needlessly configure the route targets, it would be nice to have consistency. And if it were me, I'd prefer the EOS approach

While in theory I agree with you, I think we'll keep the gap between the theory and the practice intact ;))

As to why do I care: While working on VRF static route leaking for Dell OS10, it wasn't working yet and when I was comparing to EOS looking for differences this is one of the items.

There's nothing stopping you to make the Dell OS10 template more like the EOS one. Will I go and fix a bunch of other templates or test the changes if someone else makes them? No, there's no real value in that.