Hi Everyone, I am new on this list. You can use the tags when making static route to some specific services or customers and add a different tag based on a final treatment:
ip route 1.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 2.2.2.2 tag 100 ---> tag 100 for /24 customers,high QoS, or any other kind of needed treatment ip route 3.3.3.0 255.255.255.248 4.4.4.4 tag 200 ---> tag 200 for /28 or less 4 customers, non priority customers router bgp 65000 redistribute static route-map TAGS route-map TAGS permit 10 match tag 100 set next-hop 5.5.5.5 route-map TAGS permit 20 match tag 200 set next-hop 6.6.6.6 set as-path prepend 65000 65000 65000 route-map TAGS permit 9999 This is an example of how to use tags, they can be used in conjunction with any BGP attribute to make a complete policy routing, that sometime cannot be made simply by using another "classification attribute". PS: Sorry for any command typo, I wrote them down from memory, maybe the syntaxis is different but the idea remains the same. HTH. //r.a. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Max Pierson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Regarding setting tags for routes, I'm all about that in the real world > because the tags can be used for many things other than routing loop > prevention. But my question is about the "There's a few ways to do this and > my task doesn't say anything about which way to do it, restrictions, etc". > Is Cisco looking more for the results of it working and ad-hearing to the > task, or is it a situation of "There's many ways of doing this, but we WANT > it done the Cisco way, even though we didn't specify that you couldn't use > another way of doing this". > > This is what i've heard some of the nightmare stories about. IMO, if > there's no restrictions or no specification on how to do something, if it > works at the end of the day, I get the points. Of course, my opinion seems > to be completely wrong based on what i've heard from other IE's and soon to > be IE's. > > Comments, clarification, etc ..... all welcome as i'd like to see what > others have experienced. > > -- > m > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Carlos Valero <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I understand the "Potential" for Routing Loops. >> >> But I also know that in most cases, *you can always handle that by >> "manipulating" the "distance" of each protocol using either the "distance >> command" or some other method to accomplish this.* >> >> I have been told by a couple of guys at IPExpert that *"it is just a >> matter of taste"* >> >> For instance, I know that some guys like Scott Morris (when he was with >> IPExpert), are BIG fan of Route Tags. >> >> I have the Material written by him when he was still there (couple of >> years ago) >> >> After he left, most of the Mock Labs were solved using "Simple >> Redistribution" without using Route Tags. >> >> Then I was told that *"I was VERY unlikely"* to get Route Tag Lab >> scenarios in the Real CCIE Lab. >> >> I was told that about a year ago. >> >> I just wonder what other people think about this. >> >> *Is it really "a matter of taste"?* >> >> I know that if the Lab is written asking specifically to use them, then >> there will be no way around. But if they don't ask for it .... I guess I >> don't have to use them! >> >> So the question in other words is: "*How likely are they* (Cisco >> Proctors) *to specifically request the use of Route Tags" ??* >> >> 25% ???, 50% ??? 75%??? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> >> >> --- On *Fri, 12/10/10, Chris Fata <[email protected]>* wrote: >> >> >> From: Chris Fata <[email protected]> >> >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Route tagging with redistribution >> To: "CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList" <[email protected]> >> Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 4:46 PM >> >> >> Anytime that you are going to be redistributing a protocol into another >> and then back into that originating protocol you are going to have potential >> for routing loops. >> >> With that being said.....the exam is designed to test your understanding >> of the technology and if I were designing a scenario you can bet I would >> introduce potential for loops. >> >> In short....I would understand this technology backward and forward as >> this is fair game on the exam. >> >> As for real life applications, I am a systems engineer for a consulting >> firm and these scenarios come up quite a bit when you’re talking about >> redundancy within the topology. >> >> Think of it this way....even if you do not get redistribution with route >> tagging on the exam, it will make you a stronger engineer to fully >> understand the technology and disseminate how the router thinks. >> >> My two cents. >> >> >> >> Christopher Fata | 616.528.0660 | CCIE Written, CCNP, MCSE | [image: >> Description: Description: Description: Description: small-logo] | >> www.netechcorp.com >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marko Milivojevic >> *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 4:28 PM >> *To:* Carlos Valero >> *Cc:* CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList >> *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Route tagging with redistribution >> >> >> >> >> >> Carlos, >> >> >> >> You are very likely to find a scenario that is "best" solved using route >> tagging in your lab exam. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 >> >> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert >> >> >> >> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture >> >> >> >> Mailto: [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> >> >> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >> >> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:00, Carlos Valero >> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> *I have a general question about Route Tagging.* >> >> >> >> Although the general idea seems pretty simple, >> >> the actual implementation can be VERY complex and it usually leads to BIG >> mess! >> >> >> >> So my question is: >> >> >> >> *How likely are we to find Route Tagging Lab scenarios in the real CCIE >> Lab Exam?* >> >> >> >> I had been told that it is very unlikely that we'll have to deal with it >> in the Exam. >> >> >> >> *Is that true? *Should I not pay too much attention to it and basically >> "gamble" on the possibility of NOT finding it in the real Lab Exam? >> >> >> >> >> >> *How about real life?* >> >> >> >> Does anyone really mess with these Tags in real life? >> >> >> >> Or is it a seldom use feature as so many obscure IOS features? >> >> >> >> I hope somebody can shed some light on this. >> >> >> >> Thanks!! >> >> >> >> >> >> --- On *Mon, 11/2/09, Vikas Sharma >> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> >> >* wrote: >> >> >> From: Vikas Sharma >> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> >> > >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Route tagging and redistribution between an IGP >> and EGP >> To: "CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList" >> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> >> > >> Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 7:13 PM >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> >> >> I need your help out here. I have created a lab in GNS as follows: >> >> >> >> R0 - R1 - R2 - R3 all run EIGRP. >> >> >> >> R2 - R3 - R4 run BGP as well. >> >> >> >> R2 - R3 redistribute EIGRP into BGP and vice versa. >> >> >> >> I am attaching a zip file with the drawing plus configs and the NET file. >> >> >> >> The intention of this lab is as follows. >> >> >> >> 1. R0 and R1 simulate 2 client sites connected together. >> 2. We have a route map on each router that sets tags on routes that >> are not local to that particular site. >> 3. This route map is applied to a distribute list in the direction of >> routers R2 and R3 respectively. >> 4. I managed to get the EIGRP part working. >> 5. However, as far as tagging routes is concerned, for some reason R1 >> has stopped tagging routes to send them onwards to R3. It worked yesterday >> and not today and I wonder if this is a GNS thing. >> 6. On R2 and R3 there is another route map that looks for tags and >> then does an as-prepend to make tagged routes more expensive and send them >> to R4 which is like a remote site router. The idea is that BGP must see 2 >> paths which we influence, in its routing table and should one of the sites >> (either R0 or R1) goes off the air it should automatically be able to use >> the second path to reach that network. >> 7. When I apply the redistribute statement with the route map in BGP >> on routers R2 and R3, I find that the BGP routing table has only a few >> networks learnt and no alternative path. >> 8. I then took off the redistribute eigrp statement off the BGP config >> and re-added it in without the route-map and lo and behold, I see all the >> routes on R4 and each have an alternative path. Result is exactly as I >> want >> but I want to influence the routes in BGP. So, basically, if routes >> originating on R0 and seen on R2, the routing on R4 for those networks >> should be via R2 and not R3. Right now I'm not able to influence these >> routing decisions. >> >> However, without the route-map, it works beautifully but I want to use >> route tagging to influence how BGP decides where to route and have an >> alternative path. >> >> >> >> I look forward to your feedback. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Vikas Sharma >> Network Specialist >> Fujitsu Australia >> (M): 0421 052 117 >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> >> >> CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This electronic transmission and any attachments >> constitute confidential information which is intended only for the named >> recipient(s) and may be legally privileged. If you have received this >> communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Any >> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning >> the >> contents of this communication by anyone other than the named recipient(s) >> is strictly prohibited. >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
