From: eward15@juno.com
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 00:49:34 GMT-3
Question?
Wouldn't the deny statement (10) in the route map deny 192.168.36.0 from being suppressed and the permit statement (20) permit the other routes to be supressed?
Eugene Ward
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case #2
Your creating the same 192.168.32.0 /21 aggregate but not using the
summary-only keyword so none of the more specifics are being supressed at
this time and would normally get advertised to the neighbor. But, you have a
supress map being applied to the neighbor so anything matching the
192.168.36.0/x will be supressed to that neighbor.
Outcome: 192.168.32.0/21 will be advertised as well all the more specifics
EXCEPT 192.168.36.0/x
So to answer the question, No, I don't think they are the same. They both
advertise the 192.168.32.0/21 but the first one allows the more specific
192.168.36.0 to be advertised whereas the 2nd example denies that one but
allows the rest.
Close but not quite the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------
aggregate address 192.168.32.0 255.255.248.0 suppress-map not36
access-list 1 permit 192.168.36.0
route-map not36 deny 10
match ip address 1
route-map not36 permit 20
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:52 GMT-3