From: Chula Bandara (chula_bandara@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 05 2006 - 07:12:16 GMT-3
provided that you are not asked to create a secondary ip address on the same
interface , you can use match interface
From: "de Witt, Duane" <duane.dewitt@siemens.com>
Reply-To: "de Witt, Duane" <duane.dewitt@siemens.com>
To: "Kirby, Tracy" <Tracykirby@catholichealth.net>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: match interface vs match prefix-list or access-list
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:19:42 +0200
I don't think there is any difference, provided you structure your
prefix/access list correctly.
I use match interface when ever possible because there is less typing
involved.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Kirby, Tracy
Sent: 04 January 2006 08:24 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: match interface vs match prefix-list or access-list
When working with the labs in the IEWB Version 3.0, I seem to be
configuring different commands than the IEWB solutions guide when it
comes to match interface vs match prefix-list or access-list in a
route-map.
I am referring to questions that state redistribute interfaces or vlan's
into an IGP without using the network statement.
Is there any special wording or scenario that would cause me to pick
match interface {name} vs match ip address prefix-list {word} vs match
ip address {access-list}? Or does it matter which match statement I
choose?
Thanks.
Tracy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 07:45:47 GMT-3