Hi @JonathanC1
Funny enough, the scenario described by you is a recurring topic for discussion with some of my customers.
The problem in ACI when it comes to static routes is that you can only configure them in a L3Out and only pointing to an external next hop. Why? Because in the philosophy of ACI, L3Out is the construct which points you to prefixes outside of ACI fabric. From the same point of view, the EPGs (or BDs to be technically accurate) are the subnets inside (or behind) ACI fabric. In other words, you cannot have other prefixes (and static routes for those prefixes) behind an Endpoint from an EPG, because is a `bad design`.
What will happen if you point a static route in a L3Out to a next hop which is an EP? I didn't tested but I think the route will not be programmed. Or if it is programmed, then the policy enforcement will definitely not work. So either way will not work. At least in the current ACI images. Maybe in the future the future will be added, though I don't think it will happen.
What is the solution to your problem?
There are two solutions which I see:
Option1: if there are not a lot of IP addresses in the subnet, create host routes (/32) in EPG. YES, you can create /32 routes in an EPG pointing to an endpoint. It looks like this:
Info: you add a /32 host route, check "no default svi gateway", select "EP Reachability", and type the EP which is the next hop.
Downside of this is if you have a big subnet. You can automate it, but still it will look ugly
Option2: redesign. You need to move the subnet behind a L3Out, either by moving the endpoint which holds the prefix (IP readdressing is necessary) or you move just the prefix itself.
Hope it helps.
Sergiu
