Redistributing is forwarding routing information relative to the
destination address of the packet. "Policy routing" is dynamically
altering the next-hop based on the packets direction of arrival and
various other atributes.
There is no general way to express those conditions as routing
information that can be redistibuted or advertised thru the
conventional protocols.
They probably should have called it "context sensitive switching" or
some other gobbledygook to better differentiate it from classical
routing based on destination address "only"... 8-)
George
> From cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net Sat Oct 14 00:34:03 2000
> Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:31:30 -0400
> Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:30:15 -0400
> To: Scott Whyte <swhyte@cisco.com>
> cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net, jared@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: Policy routing
> In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:05:02 -0700.
> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010120901520.7035-100000@garbo.cisco.com>
> X-DISCLAIMER: The following are my opinions, i.e., imagine IMO's all over the place.
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:29:20 -0700
> From: Mark Milhollan - Franklin Employee <mlm@ftel.net>
> Resent-From: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> X-Mailing-List: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> archive/latest/3989
> X-Loop: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net
>
> Scott Whyte writes:
> >Policy routing overrides all IGPs. That's what its for. You can think of
> >it as glorified static routing, it has the same limitations as static
> >routes do (local to router, leads to black-holing, etc) but is not limited
> >to destination based forwarding. There is no way to redistribute a policy
> >route into an IGP.
>
> Yet you can redistribute static routes into an IGP. (Not that I'm
> saying it's a good thing, usually, just that it can be done.)
>
>
>
> /mark
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:19 EDT