From: Jennifer Bellucci (Jennifer_bellucci@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 08:26:19 GMT-3
From what I understand...
the 'route-map deny' will deny everything that is not matched by the first
permit statement. Its the route-map version of explicit deny.
Can someone please correct me.
Hope this helps
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Underhill" <stepnwlf@magma.ca>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: Route map
> 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 - 17:21:41 GMT-3