From: Colin Barber (Colin.Barber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 18:11:34 GMT-3
CCIE FUN, what do you mean YOU COLIN BARBER?
Why don't YOU learn some manners!
I am well aware that you don't use as-path filters in OSPF. I was making the
point that one method uses an explicit BGP parameter and the other uses a
generic parameter to achieve the same result. However if you were stupid
enough to apply the filters to OSPF, then one using the generic method would
not block all your routes.
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: CCIE FUN [mailto:ccieexam2002@yahoo.com]
Sent: 07 August 2002 16:30
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 - 19:48:21 GMT-3