On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 04:29:45 PM Reuben Farrelly wrote: > WTF? The IPv6 prefix has been matched by the IPv4 > specific route-map sequence 10, and the community from > that route map of 38858:2504 'set' on the router. It > should be falling through to sequence 100 on account of > a no-match on sequence 10, I thought. I mean it's not > even the same friggin protocol... > > (And no, there's no IPv6 prefix lists defined at all, > anywhere, on that switch)
Interesting. Well, that's one of the reasons we use dedicated routing policies for both IPv4 and IPv6, including different route- map names as well, to avoid potential issues such as these (unintended or otherwise). Have you tested whether having a dedicated route-map for the IPv6 session works around this problem? Then again, IPv6 on the ME3600X is still new. I'm happy to report that the bug which causes application of an egress IPv4 ACL to block all IPv6 traffic on a dual-stack interface has been identified and fixed in the next maintenance release, but can't say for sure whether the issue you're facing is in that list. But very good thing you've reported it. Thanks for sharing the SR number. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
