My note on this: network people are used to do this interactively, this is possibly reason guys from GoBGP are doing it the same way (only from CLI/API).
Netflow rules are not very persistent in nature, much less than usual routes. r. > That is true, currently you can just define it in static protocol and > receive or announce it by BGP. > > I think that we should expand static protocol to allow adding or deleting > routes interactively. There are some problematic behavioral details in > it; e.g., how we should handle interactive removal of a route from > configuration. Should we have two independent sets of routes, one > added/removed by reconfiguration, one interactively? Or should we allow > to remove interactively one from configuration? If so, should it respawn > during reconfiguration? >
