Hello Tacack,

If you look at this technote:

You'll see that the match is based on and, but apparantly, you can define multiple access-list numbers and match on an or-basis for that.

Altough this technote is about route-redistribution, the principle should be the same..

Pieter-Jan

On 12 sep 2010, at 14:42, Vybhav Ramachandran wrote:

Hello All,

I came across a PBR task with the following requirements :

1) Match ICMP traffic
2) Match only if it exits out of fa 0/1 interface
3) Match it only if it's length is a hundred bytes.
4) Drop the traffic if it matches the above criteria

The solution states :

access-list 101 permit icmp any any

route-map test
  match ip address 101
  match interface fa 0/1
  match length 100 100
  set interface null 0
exit

Then , the route-map is applied to an interface.

I always thought, multiple match criteria were processed using the "OR" logic. That is, in this case, if either the packet matches the ACL 101 , or if the exiting interface of the packet is fa 0/1 , or if the packet length is 100 bytes, then it matches the route-map's clause and the packet is dropped. But the solution uses this as an "AND" logic.

I'm confused? I found an example(below) in the Doc-CD which states that the successive MATCH clauses are treated as OR.


! Match ip address access list 69 or match AS path 1
! and set the IP Precedence to critical
route-map precedence-map permit 75
 match ip address 69
 match as-path 1
 set ip precedence critical


Wondering if anyone can shed some light on this

Cheers and thanks,
TacACK

_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com

---

Nefkens Advies

Enk 26

4214 DD Vuren

The Netherlands


Tel: +31 183 634730

Fax: +31 183 690113

Cell: +31 654 323221

Email: [email protected]

Web: http://www.nefkensadvies.nl/


 Think before you print.




_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to