On 20/Jun/16 19:41, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> Tags are specific to Cisco, you should be using a community instead. >We use tags on Juniper quite successfully. Makes it easy to introduce >static routes into iBGP. >It irks me that Cisco does not support this. > > You can use something like redistribute static against a route-map that > matches the tag and marks your (local) discard community. >Won't work. >You can't have a tag as a match condition in Cisco. It will throw up an >error that the OP shared earlier. this is not entirely correct: BGP routes don’t have a tag in Cisco’s implementation, so you can’t match against a tag when a route-map controls BGP path advertisements. You can use it when redistributing other route sources which do support tags (statics, etc.) into BGP: r1(config)#route-map FOO r1(config-route-map)#match tag 123 r1(config-route-map)#exit this one works: r1(config)#router bgp 65001 r1(config-router)#redistribute static route-map FOO r1(config-router)# this one doesn’t r1(config-router)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 65002 r1(config-router)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 route-map FOO out % "FOO" used as BGP outbound route-map, tag match not supported % not supported match will behave as route-map with no match r1(config-router)# _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
