> Any caveats with using the same route-map for v4 and v6 BGP peering
> sessions? What about statements with match statements that match
either
> v4 and v6?
>
> e.g.
>
> route-map foo permit 10
> match ip next-hop foo
> match ipv6 next-hop bar
>
> Would that match v4 or v6, depending on the address type?
>
haven't checked in the lab, but strictly speaking, the above map would
require both conditions to be met, which is not possible for any given
prefix ;-) so I doubt this works.
However below should work:
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
route-map foo permit 20
match ipv6 next-hop bar
However this could become cumbersome, so maybe better use distinct
route-maps?
oli
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
