From: alain faure (alainfaure@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 - 08:09:51 GMT-3
Why not, but you can redistribute a static, not policy routing route that's the
point. So to do the same you have to declare the policy on all of the routers.
An other anoying thingh is policy routing is always up, static routing can be
down when link does down.
--- Lab Candidate <labccie@yahoo.com> a icrit : > Don't you think we can use
this technique to by-pass the "no static route"
> rule in the lab?
>
>
> --- Carolyn Camarda <ccamarda@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > While my routers reboot, I'll take a stab at this....
> >
> > You could do but remember the router will policy-route before it looks in
> > the routing table. You would have to use an extended access-list with the
> > destination of all your good 'routes' to deny them and then a permit any
> any
> > statement for the rest.
> >
> > Sound right?
> >
> > IMO it wouldn't be pretty.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Don Banyong" <don_study@hotmail.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:49 PM
> > Subject: Route-Maps
> >
> >
> > > Hi y'all.
> > > Is it possible to use policy routing (using route-maps) to completely
> > > substitute static routes in an environment where there are no dynamic
> > routes?
> > >
> > > I am trying to create a policy route that will send all internally
> > generated
> > > packets with unknown destination to a next-hop address. This should be
> the
> > > same like using ip default-network or the ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 cmd.
> > >
> > > Any ideas? This is not part of any lab..... just brain storming!
> > > Thanks,
> > > Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:25 GMT-3