Re: Conditional Based Routing

Seems more like Policy-map and policy based to me... always second guessing
myself

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Now I am curious on how after setting up a track how this can be applied
> to route-map to set next hop. Lets keep this one going I think it has some
> exam relevance and in the process give Vishal some options...
>
> Marc
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is for sure some relevance to Joe's suggestion I am looking at Doc
>> CD now here:
>>
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipapp/configuration/12-4t/iap-eot.html#GUID-FDCACD5E-0F4C-43C8-8770-93CC8883D0A6
>>
>>
>> Might shed some light if you decide to travel that road.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Joe Sanchez <marco207p_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree Marc,,,, I must like making things more interesting..... :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:41 PM, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Visahl:
>>>>
>>>> Before it gets too complicated. I do think that your suggestion of
>>>>
>>>> ip route 172.16.50.0 255.255.255.0 Tunnel 2 200 is worth a shot
>>>>
>>>> I don't see this being a problem unless you igp is iBGP...
>>>>
>>>> What do you think Joe?
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Joe Sanchez <marco207p_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vishal,
>>>>>
>>>>> Look into tracking, or enhanced object tracking.
>>>>>
>>>>> JS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Vishal Rane <vishal.rane_at_hotmail.co.in
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hello Is it possible to have a conditional based Routing where
>>>>> Dynamic
>>>>> > Routing is preferred and if no reachability to Host via Dynamic
>>>>> Routing
>>>>> > Protocol then Static Routes takes over Or will this static
>>>>> statement
>>>>> > work as
>>>>> > non-preferred route ip route 172.16.50.0 255.255.255.0 Tunnel 2 200
>>>>> > Thanks
>>>>> > Vishal (( SCENARIO
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> ))^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^set
>>>>> > up where Site A is connected to Site B , Site B is connected to Site
>>>>> C
>>>>> > A------------B-----------------CSite A connected to Site B < GRE
>>>>> over IPSEC
>>>>> > with OSPF > Site B connected to Site C < Point to Point > To have
>>>>> > redundancy
>>>>> > betwen Site A and Site C we configured < GRE over IPSEC > Traffic
>>>>> dont pass
>>>>> > from Site A to Site C using the GRE Tunnel when we manullay shutdown
>>>>> the
>>>>> > interface on Site C ( interface which is P-2-P with Site B ) show
>>>>> ip route
>>>>> > output indicates traffic still passing A-----B------C unless i have a
>>>>> > static
>>>>> > route on Site Aip route 172.16.50.0 255.255.255.0 Tunnel 2 (
>>>>> Tunnel 2
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > GRE tunnel between Site A and Site C ) We prefer to have Primay
>>>>> path for
>>>>> > Site C from Site A -> A ------------ B ------------------C if link
>>>>> > between
>>>>> > B------C is down thenFailover path would be A-------------------C
>>>>> >
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Apr 09 2012 - 15:21:39 ART