From: Maurice Flint (mflint@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 11:01:39 GMT-3
I see that the route-map's equivalent of "permit any" is not present. Could th
at
be causing the problem?
route-map next-hop permit 10
match ip next hop 1
set ip next-hop 64.108.4.4
!
route-map next-hop permit 20
(leave blank)
alain faure wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What i found in cisco CD is that you can use :
> > match ip next hop 1
> for route-map for redistribution, but apparantly not for policy routing, so i
f
> it is right there is a lot of chance (?) that all your pakets match. And by t
he
> way produce some not very good thinght in term of IGRP behavior (like announc
e
> packet going the wrong way)
> What do you think about that ?
>
> Best regards
>
> --- garry baker <fallow46@yahoo.com> a icrit : > Guys,
> >
> > I have run into a problem with policy routing and ip
> > next hop. i have a frame network that is not fully
> > meshed and i am only allowed one fame map statement.
> > so to get full connectivity I need to polciy route so
> > that anything destined for the router that i don'thave
> > a pvc for should go via another pvc.
> >
> > what i have done is set a some policy routing that
> > says:
> >
> > route-map next-hop permit 10
> > match ip next hop 1
> > set ip next-hop 64.108.4.4
> >
> > access-list 1 permit 64.108.4.3
> >
> > i activate this route map on the appropriate
> > interfaces and also local policy routing. my problem
> > is that everything is matching this policy route even
> > networks that i am trying to get to that are directly
> > connected are taking the long route thanks to the
> > route map. I know i must be doing something silly
> > here. i have a router talking igrp to this router that
> > loses all it igrp routes from this policy routed box
> > when the internal policy routing is turned on. Can
> > someone help me with this???
> >
> >
> > Garry
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:51 GMT-3