From: Darryl Munro (Darryl.Munro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 07:27:23 GMT-3
Can you explain why you would apply a route map that referenced an ip
as-path access-list to OSPF in the first place. The route map is not talking
about accepting routes it is changing the metric type and sure the second
route map would allow all OSPF routes through with out change as there would
be no match.
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Barber [mailto:Colin.Barber@telewest.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2002 8:14 p.m.
To: 'Peng Zheng'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: route-map
They are the same for BGP updates.
But if you applied the route map to OSPF for example only the second one
would accept routes because it matches all. The first one would reject
because there would be no as-path to check.
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: Peng Zheng [mailto:zpnist@yahoo.com]
Sent: 06 August 2002 23:34
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: route-map
Hi,
Is there any difference between these two
configurations:
1)
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _4$
ip as-path access-list 2 permit .*
route-map test permit 10
match as-path 1
set metric 5
route-map test permit 20
match as-path 2
and
2)
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _4$
route-map test permit 10
match as-path 1
set metric 5
route-map test permit 20
I can't find any difference between them? Why some
book use 1)
Thank you for help.
Best Wishes,
Peng Zheng
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:18 GMT-3