From: Timothy Ouellette (timoue@cogeco.ca)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 03:29:40 GMT-3
Groupstudy,
r8---148.148.148.x/24---r1---r3---r2
r8 is .8, r1 is .1 on the 148.148.148.x/24 segment.
rather than inject a input a static route on r8 to r1 for all other
networks. I figured i'd try it with local policy. R1 knows about all
other networks including 2.2.2.2/32 which is r2's loopback.
My question is why is r8 using it's loopback as the source of locally
generated traffic. Below is the basic policy routing config of r8
(running 12.2.(1) code) and the output of the "debug ip policy"
ip local policy route-map testpolicy
ip classless
!
access-list 100 permit ip any any
route-map testpolicy permit 10
match ip address 100
set ip next-hop 148.148.148.1
here's the debug ip policy
r8#ping 2.2.2.2
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2.2.2.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 104/105/112
ms
r8#
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: s=8.8.8.8 (local), d=2.2.2.2, len 100, policy
match
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: route map testpolicy, item 10, permit
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: s=8.8.8.8 (local), d=2.2.2.2 (Serial0), len 100,
policy routed
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: local to Serial0 148.148.148.1
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: s=8.8.8.8 (local), d=2.2.2.2, len 100, policy
match
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: route map testpolicy, item 10, permit
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: s=8.8.8.8 (local), d=2.2.2.2 (Serial0), len 100,
policy routed
*Feb 28 19:26:16: IP: local to Serial0 148.148.148.1
*Feb 28 19:26:17: IP: s=8.8.8.8 (local), d=2.2.2.2, len 100, policy
match
I've tried it on boxes running 12.1(9) and the same results. Is this
normal for polciy routing that it sources the data from the lowest
loopback. As soon as I took off the policy routing (after I added a
static) I saw that the pings were originating from the 148.148.148.8
address which is the interface it should take to get to that network.
Can anyone comment or direct me to a page on cisco where it might
explain?
Many thanks...
Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:47 GMT-3