From: Justin Fu (justin_fu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 03:04:40 GMT-3
Hello,
There is a difference between
set ip default next-hop and
set ip next-hop,
the above one will check the explicit route first , if there is no match in
the routing table
and it will do policy route. but the "set ip next-hop" will omit the routing ta
ble checking
process?
Rgds,
Justin Fu
Brian Hescock wrote:
> In practice, you're correct, that's the way it appears and the way you
> should think of it. Technically, it actually does the ip forward setup
> and looks for the outbound interface before doing policy routing. Why
> policy routing comes after routing and seemly overrides it (which is
> correct) I don't know but that's the way it's written in the code (I
> checked my cheat sheet hanging in my cube of what comes before what.
>
> Brian
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 Lachlan_Kidd@data3.com.au wrote:
>
> >
> > As far as I know, policy routing is done first before any route table
> > lookups are done. Hence the need to place the policy inbound on the
> > incoming interface so the packet will be policy routed rather than via the
> > route table. If there is no match on the policy, then normal routing is
> > used.
> > Lachlan
> >
> >
> >
> > "Aaron
> > DuShey" To: "CCIE \(E-mail\)" <ccielab
@groupstudy.com>
> > <adushey@yaho cc:
> > o.com> Subject: Policy routes
> > Sent by:
> > nobody@groups
> > tudy.com
> >
> >
> > 24/07/00
> > 03:59 AM
> > Please
> > respond to
> > "Aaron
> > DuShey"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What priority(admin distance) do Policy routes have over other routes, such
> > as Direct connects, OSPF, EIGRP etc..?
> > I have a problem which I cannot ping a local loopback interface after
> > configuring a policy route. Any suggestions?
> > thanks,
> >
> > Aaron DuShey
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:57 GMT-3