From: Dang Quang Minh (minhdq@saigonctt.com)
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 07:58:19 GMT-3
Eugene,
That's the way it works.
Network 192.168.36.0 will not be suppressed and the rest will be.
Thanks,
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
eward15@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:50 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: re: bgp aggregate suppress question
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