From: Marvin Greenlee (marvingreenlee@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jan 06 2006 - 00:43:12 GMT-3
Be aware that there are certain cases (like virtual
templates) where 'match interface' won't work.
Because the virtual template interface is cloned, the
routing table shows the source as the cloned virtual
access interface. You can't 'match interface' on the
virtual access, because the number of the virtual
access interface can change.
- Marvin Greenlee
--- "de Witt, Duane" <duane.dewitt@siemens.com> wrote:
> 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