From: Jay Greenberg (groupstudylist@execulink.com)
Date: Sun Dec 08 2002 - 16:07:37 GMT-3
Hmm.. that's odd because I'm pretty sure there is an implicit deny at
the end of a route map. I know this because I work a lot with BGP, and
I am in the habit of putting a "routemap <name> permit <seq>" at the
end, with no additional commands.
<... 5 minutes pass as I verify this in the lab ...>
I have verified that when you use a route-map with ospf redistribution,
an explicit deny is not necessary. Something else must have been wrong
in your lab.
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 12:50, John Underhill wrote:
> I have an easy one for you.. Now, I believe I know the answer, and am really
> looking for clarification as to why this operates in this way. I was doing a
> lab yesterday that required me to advertise an interface without the network
> statement in OSPF, so..
> redist connected metric 1000 route-map CONNECTED
> access-list 1 permit 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255
> route-map CONNECTED permit 10
> match ip add 1
> Now a little lator on I noticed that router advertising the loopback address
> into the routing table, and so I added..
> route map CONNECTED deny 20
> and it was gone.. but what I am unclear on, is I thought the implicit deny on
> the access list would have summarily denied this interface, and it has not
> been my habit to add this second route map statement, am I missing something
> here? Does someone have a 'best practices' when using route maps advice/link?
> I appreciate it
> John
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:40 GMT-3