From: Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (karwas@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 03:50:37 GMT-3
This is valid point, but I was mainly concerned about
"match" statement (or more correctly -- conditional).
Thanks anyway,
Przemek
On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 00:00, Hansang Bae wrote:
> At 02:48 PM 2/8/2002 -0500, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki wrote:
> >According to cisco documentation if one has enabled
> >policy routing on specific interface, route-map referenced
> >in "ip policy route-map <name>" is "executed" before routing
> >table is consulted.
> >If this is a case, is it possible to use "match ip next-hop"
> >criteria in such route-maps?
> >Origin of my question can be traced to CCBootCamp lab 1.
> >One of the objective is to provide spoke to spoke connectivity
> >without L2 maps but use policy routing instead.
> >Origianal solution use huge access list, enumerating all routes
> >behind spoke routers. This is IMHO not very elegant and scalable.
> >I would rather prefer to use something like this:
> >
> >route-map SPOKES_VIA_HUB permit 10
> > match ip next-hop 100
> > set ip next-hop 10.10.1.1
> >
> >access-list 100 permit ip any 10.10.0.0 0.0.255.255
> >
> >But how router will know next-hop without consulting
> >routing table first?
>
>
> Your last sentence is right on. Blurb from the upcoming
> comp.dcom.sys.cisco FAQ:
>
> route-map RouteMeBaby permit 10
> !To whom shoud this policy apply to?
> match ip address 1
> !
> !Where should you redirect it to? Should use both. If one is
> !omitted, the value will be retrived from the routing table -
> !which may or may not be what you wanted
> !
> set ip next-hop ROUTER_2's_SERIAL_IP
> set interface s0
>
> hsb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:16 GMT-3