Hi everyone,
We'd like to propose the addition of a new keyword, "setorder", to the IP address configuration command. This keyword would allow users to specify the order in which IP addresses are applied to an interface, ensuring consistent behavior regardless of the order they are entered.

Motivation
Currently, the order in which IP addresses are configured on an interface can potentially impact functionality in some scenarios. With setorder, users can define a clear and predictable order for IP usage, eliminating this potential source of inconsistency.

Proposed Solution
The setorder keyword would be added as an optional parameter to the IP address configuration command. It would accept an integer value representing the desired order for that specific IP address. Lower values indicate a higher priority.

Example Configuration
R1# interface eth3
R1# ip address 89.A.B.2/32 setorder 5
R1# ip address 10.100.2.1/32 setorder 6
R1# ip address 16.16.2.1/32 setorder 3
R1# ip address 83.83.2.6/32
R1# ip address 63.63.2.6/32

In this example, the IP addresses would be applied in the following order (ascending setorder value):
16.16.2.1/32 (setorder 3)
89.A.B.2/32 (setorder 5)
10.100.2.1/32 (setorder 6)
The remaining two IP addresses (without setorder) would retain their current behavior.

Expected Output (After FRR Reload)
interface eth3
ip address 16.16.2.1/32 setorder 3
ip address 89.A.B.2/32 setorder 5
ip address 10.100.2.1/32 setorder 6
ip address 83.83.2.6/32
ip address 63.63.2.6/32

Is the proposed setorder solution acceptable for achieving predictable IP address order on interfaces? If not, please provide details on any concerns or alternative approaches you may have.

Thanks
Denny Agussy