From: CCIE FUN (ccieexam2002@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 12:29:51 GMT-3
Both the route-maps are valid, the 2nd route-map
example is implicit meaning what ever does not match
the first route-map, assign a default metric.
Its your choice which one you wan't to go with.
but i would suggest always go with th 1st route-map
example, so that you know what exactly is happening
and what is being modified.
BY THE WAY YOU COLIN BARBER, YOU NEVER USE AS-PATH
ACCESS-LIST FOR OSPF.
--- Darryl Munro <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>
wrote:
> 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