From: Carlos (cchorao@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 23:51:59 GMT-3
Hi Group,
When configuring the route-map used in policy routing my understanding has
always been to use the "match ip address / set next hop " combination, the
configs r2,r3 and r5 from ccbootcamp lab 1 demonsrate this well.
I recently did lab 1 again with a small variation , instead of using the above
"match ip address / set next hop " I decided to use the match ip next-hop /
set next hop statements (see config extracts below) . Based on my
understanding of policy routing I fully expected the config to fail . Well I
was surprised that it worked but at a complete loss as to why it.
Can anyone explain why the experiment worked? I have searched archives for
similar but no luck. I have tested my experiment for packets that originate
from the router doing policy routing as well as those that pass through - both
work. I incluce an extract from the model solution as well as my experiment.
Tx
Carlos
The solution to lab 1 uses the following (for r2 -)
ip local policy route-map 10
route-map 10 permit 10
match ip address 101
set ip next-hop 10.10.1.1
access-list 101 permit ip any 10.34.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 101 permit ip any 11.1.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 101 permit ip any 10.4.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 101 permit ip any host 10.10.1.3
access-list 101 permit ip any host 10.10.1.5
access-list 101 permit ip any 10.44.0.0 0.0.255.255
My experiment used the following
ip local policy route-map frl2l3
route-map frl2l3 permit 10
match ip next-hop 1
set ip next-hop 10.10.1.1
access-list 1 permit 10.10.1.3
access-list 1 permit 10.10.1.5
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:19 GMT-3