ok but does it still set the precedence ?
mp
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Basil Dolmatov" <dol@office.east.ru>
À : "Martin Picard" <mpicard@sinc.ca>; "Eric Osborne" <eosborne@cisco.com>
Cc : <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Envoyé : 26 janvier, 2001 11:56
Objet : RE: [nsp] IP Policy
>
> LOL!
>
> Jan 26 19:54:19: IP: s=195.170.40.6 (Serial1), d=195.34.13.109, len 576,
> policy m
> atch
> Jan 26 19:54:19: IP: route map CALM, item 10, permit
> Jan 26 19:54:19: IP: s=195.170.40.6 (Serial1), d=195.34.13.109
(Ethernet0),
> len 5
> 76, policy rejected -- normal forwarding
> =^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> this one? It's completely NORMAL...
>
> It means that direction of packet will be determined through
> ordinary routing engine... Nothing more ;)
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Basil (Vasily) V. Dolmatov CCIE# 5347
> LightCom Corp. http://www.lightcom.ru
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Picard [mailto:mpicard@sinc.ca]
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 7:36 PM
> > To: Basil Dolmatov; Eric Osborne
> > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] IP Policy
> >
> >
> > and then, you apply that route-map on the input interface like
> > int e0
> > ip policy route-map CALM
> > ??
> > that's what I had and I got "policy rejected" !!!
> > mp
> >
> > ----- Message d'origine -----
> > De : "Basil Dolmatov" <dol@office.east.ru>
> > À : "Martin Picard" <mpicard@sinc.ca>; "Eric Osborne"
<eosborne@cisco.com>
> > Cc : <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> > Envoyé : 26 janvier, 2001 11:27
> > Objet : RE: [nsp] IP Policy
> >
> >
> > > route-map CALM permit 10
> > > match ip address 140
> > > set ip precedence routine
> > > !
> > >
> > > This is _working_ route-map from one of my production routers...
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > Basil (Vasily) V. Dolmatov CCIE# 5347
> > > LightCom Corp. http://www.lightcom.ru
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Martin Picard [mailto:mpicard@sinc.ca]
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:39 PM
> > > > To: Eric Osborne
> > > > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > > Subject: Re: [nsp] IP Policy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric,
> > > > Why would I be getting a
> > > > "policy rejected" message.
> > > > As soon as I put in "set next-hop"
> > > > I get "policy routed".
> > > > I just want to set the precedence
> > > > for IPs matching an ACL, then do
> > > > normal routing.
> > > >
> > > > mp
> > > >
> > > > ----- Message d'origine -----
> > > > De : "Eric Osborne" <eosborne@cisco.com>
> > > > À : "Martin Picard" <mpicard@sinc.ca>
> > > > Cc : <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> > > > Envoyé : 26 janvier, 2001 10:06
> > > > Objet : Re: [nsp] IP Policy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Normal routing will still work; after you finish the PBR
> > stuff, you'll
> > > > > go do a regular route lookup if you need to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > eric
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 09:19:10AM -0500, Martin Picard wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When using "ip policy" to set to ip-precedence,
> > > > > > does the route-map have to include a set next-hop
> > > > > > or can normal routing still be used ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tx
> > > > > > martin
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:26 EDT