>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of luismi >Sent: lunedì 7 settembre 2009 10.17 >To: Tomas Caslavsky >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniska Tomas >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Leaking specific routes from a VRF
>Hi all, >We are doing some tests here with the code provided by Tomas. >We have several questions that we were not able to find a proper answer >over internet that we would like to share with you to see if we can >understand everything correctly: >a) "ip prefix-list" has a parameter called "le" so we can create the >rule like this: >ip prefix-list FTP_NET seq 1 permit 10.53.0.224/29 le 32 >Why is the reason to use "le" parameter? we saw it in several examples >over internet but we don't understand it yet. >What is the impact if we don't use it? Le works like "less than or equal to" So 10.53.0.224/29 le 32 matches any route less than or equal to a /32 inside your /29. So if for example 10.53.0.228/32 arrives it matches, as will 10.53.0.224/30 or 10.53.0.224/29 Without le you match only the /29 so in the above example only the /29 matches. This makes the use of prefix lists very flexible. >b) Is there any difference if we use a normal ACL instead a prefix-list >in the route-map? we also saw several configurations using ACLs and it >seems to do the same. You can use them as well but lose the flexibility. Brian >Regards and thanks in advance. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
