yes.
-----------------------------------------------------
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 8:24 PM
> To: Basil Dolmatov; Eric Osborne
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] IP Policy
>
>
> 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