unable to create static route in default vrf

[yuyuyureka]

since cosmo/routervisitor.py templates the rib to f"{manufacturer.getRoutingInstanceName()}.inet.0", it is not possible to create routes in the rib "inet.0"

[loulecrivain]

So, from what I understand from this issue (checked with LRCI0001 in the lab), the problem we have is:

• Currently, static routes in the default routing instance are represented in the routing_instances. hierarchy
• This is due to the default VRF being represented as a VRF with name "inet". Cf:

  cosmo/cosmo/routervisitor.py

  Line 451 in 7dd8e51

  if isinstance(vrf_object, VRFType):

• Cosmo output consumers use "default" routing instance name to represent default VRF, Cf: https://gitlab.service.wobcom.de/infrastructure/ansible_junos/-/blob/master/roles/junos-template/templates/routing/routing-options.j2?ref_type=heads#L10

I don't think we have cases where the path for VRFs is skipped and we end up directly outputting routes in routing_options., Cf:

cosmo/cosmo/routervisitor.py

Line 458 in 7dd8e51

else:

In either case, if we want to solve this, it'd mean potential changes in output consumers (at least ansible_junos), but it's possible I may be wrong and/or misunderstood the issue.

[loulecrivain]

Adding more context to this issue: right now, the code path mentioned above is skipped because we do not / cannot have routes without VRFs in Netbox, for historical reasons. This was discussed with @johannwagner (cc). We did not see this problem during refactoring, since we didn't had tests for this.

What we'd like is to stop using "default" VRFs for global static routes, this would also require changes in Netbox static routes plugin on top of the fix for cosmo.