[c-nsp] Sup1a MSFC2 Policy Based Routing

[Jason Ford]

Rudy,

It appears you got the issue. On the match permit 20, I see the packets 
increase and the route-map must be working. Now how do we explain the 
fact that the access-list isn't getting matched when I am trying to get 
the source addresses directly attached to that port defined to any host? 
It seems that:

access-list 180 permit ip 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.15 any

should get all of the ip addresses that flow from the severs to the 6500 
then be routed out the next-hop I define.

Seems you have identified where exactly the problem is however doesn't 
explain why the packets aren't getting picked up.

jason

Rudy Setiawan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On you route-map, can you add 
> One more line permit?
>
> route-map peer-out permit 20
>
> And see if the counter on permit 20 is increasing?
>
> if yes, then the match ip address is not matching it on permit 10.
>
> Just a way to find out if it matches permit 10 or not.
>
> Rudy
>
>
>   
>
>
> access-list 180 permit ip 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.16 any
>
> route-map peer-out permit 10
>  match ip address 180
>  set ip next-hop 4.4.4.10
>
> This is where I get a bit lost. I assigned this route map to the 
> interface in which the 1.1.1.0 network was attached with this.
>
> interface f 3/10
> ip policy route-map peer-out
>
> I don't see the policy routing matches increasing when I do a show 
> route-map peer-out. On top of that, if I traceroute from any server in 
> the 1.1.1.0/28 network to the outside world, it still uses the BGP 
> preferred route from the route table. Is there something I am doing 
> wrong here to override the outbound traffic for this subnet to go over a 
> desired BGP peer?
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> jason
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>