From: Paul (paulho@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jun 20 1999 - 17:44:55 GMT-3
derek,
first of all good luck. i have 30 days to go myself in raleigh.
a good reason to using "set ip next-hop" instead of "set interface" is when
you are in a multi-access domain, where more than one next hop candidate
exist; i.e. ethernet. it's the same idea when you are specifying "ip route"
statements.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Fage <DerekF@itexjsy.com>
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Date: Sunday, June 20, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: Policy routing question
>Hi there,
>
>I'm doing some work with policy routing in my lab (33 days to go), and have
>a question about route-maps.
>
>I'm configuring a route-map to so that traffic from a certain subnet will
>use a serial connection to get to another subnet instead of the ethernet
>connection which has the lowest cost.
>
>I can think of two ways of doing this with the set command, and wondered
>when one should be used in preference to the other.
>
>route-map policytest permit 10
> match ip address 101
> set interface Serial 0
>
>-OR-
>
>route-map policytest permit 10
> match ip address 101
> set ip next-hop n.n.n.n
>
>Derek...
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:39 GMT-3