On 08/03/12 09:37, Gert Doering wrote:
Of course, this fails for "connected" routes; because "match tag" is not
a "supported command" for connected, it's just ignored, meaning the 1st
statement matches for all connected routes.
Now *that* brings me to another favourite soapbox rant :-) - why oh why
is "tag" not supported on connected routes?
Interesting question. Where would the "tag" go? On the whole interface
(what about "ip ... secondary") or on the IP/IPv6 address?
(Along with "why is there no way to make HSRP-slave interfaces really
passive, not showing up in the local FIB and in 'redist connected'
etc?"... none of this is "my network will stop working if I can't have
that!" critical, but it would save oh so many workarounds).
I do still pine for the Extreme ESRP model (separate ethertype PDUs used
to determine master/slave status, slave shuts down all layer3 and layer2
[except control PDU] forwarding). Solves spanning tree and return-path
asymmetry at a stroke. It would be nice to have that option in Cisco-landia.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
