[c-nsp] ME3600 BGP Route-Maps and IPv6 (WAS: Re: preference on bgp route advertisements)

[Phil Mayers]

On 08/03/12 09:37, Gert Doering wrote:

>> Of course, this fails for "connected" routes; because "match tag" is not
>> a "supported command" for connected, it's just ignored, meaning the 1st
>> statement matches for all connected routes.
>
> Now *that* brings me to another favourite soapbox rant :-) - why oh why
> is "tag" not supported on connected routes?

Interesting question. Where would the "tag" go? On the whole interface 
(what about "ip ... secondary") or on the IP/IPv6 address?

>
> (Along with "why is there no way to make HSRP-slave interfaces really
> passive, not showing up in the local FIB and in 'redist connected'
> etc?"...  none of this is "my network will stop working if I can't have
> that!" critical, but it would save oh so many workarounds).

I do still pine for the Extreme ESRP model (separate ethertype PDUs used 
to determine master/slave status, slave shuts down all layer3 and layer2 
[except control PDU] forwarding). Solves spanning tree and return-path 
asymmetry at a stroke. It would be nice to have that option in Cisco-landia.