From: CCIE FUN (ccieexam2002@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 15:12:53 GMT-3
ofcourse, i would use the second one, but i don;t
think that was requirement for Peng Zheng's question.
--- "Desimone, Aurelio" <ADesimone@refco.com> wrote:
> If it told you to do it in the least amount of
> lines, would you choose the
> first one?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCIE FUN [mailto:ccieexam2002@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:30 AM
> To: Darryl Munro; 'Colin Barber'; 'Peng Zheng';
> 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: RE: route-map
>
>
> 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 - 19:48:19 GMT-3