From: ron.wilkerson@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jan 07 2009 - 10:32:29 ARST
This is a common misunderstanding and let's see if I recall properly. In your case, the extra sequence isn't necessary as you're using the route map for pbr.
When it does become necessary is when you're using the route map as a route filter. For instance, if you use a route map for a bgp neighbor and some of the routes from a peer do not match any of the acl's referenced in you route map, they'll be dropped.
Let's say you receive 10 routes from a peer. You want to set the weight of just 1. The first sequence would set the weight and match an acl. You'd need another entry (catch all) to allow the other 9 routes into the bgp table.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: "Mujeeb Sarwar" <mujeebsarwar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:54:42
To: Cisco certification<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: Catch All Route-Map Statement
Dear Group,
Here is a simple route-map,
route-map TST permit 10
match ip add 1
set ip next hop ......
route-map TST permit 20
match ip add 2
set ip next hop .....
route-map TST permit 30
My question is that what is the significance of catch-all statement in this
route-map if I am using this only for PBR ?? By default traffic which does
not match any statement of route-map then it routes normally ( destination
based ) and in the above case traffic which would not match statement # 10 &
20 will also route normally because policy will be rejected at statement #
30 so end result is same.
Regards,
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:36 ARST