On 03/08/2012 07:44 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
If I have a route-map that parses IPv6 routes, but does not match any
IPv6 routes (no match ipv6 ... defined anywhere in any of the route-map
sequence entries) then it matches on the first _IPv4_ route map entry
and sets the community of that IPv6
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 09:08:11AM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
The occasion I ran into it was an attempt at laziness, to use the same
route-map for redis connected and redis static. I wanted to use a
tag on static routes to signal no-export and wrote a route-map like this:
route-map
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
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 12:34:52PM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
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
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:30:16 PM Reuben Farrelly
wrote:
If I have a route-map that parses IPv6 routes, but does
not match any IPv6 routes (no match ipv6 ... defined
anywhere in any of the route-map sequence entries) then
it matches on the first _IPv4_ route map entry and sets
the
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 06:01:41 AM Reuben Farrelly
wrote:
Correction. I made a mistake in my testing there...
If I have:
ipv6 prefix-list PERMIT-IPV6-ANY seq 10 permit ::/0 le 64
Then yes the IPv6 specific route-map matches first and
the correct community is set.
You mean as
No - as opposed to having no route-map matching IPv6 at all.
So, if I have a route-map that (after my correction) actually matches an
IPv6 route at the top of the route-map sequence and sets the community
value of that IPv6 matched route, then it works as expected.
If I have a route-map that
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:30:16PM +1100, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
No - as opposed to having no route-map matching IPv6 at all.
So, if I have a route-map that (after my correction) actually matches an
IPv6 route at the top of the route-map sequence and sets the community
value of that
On 6/03/2012 4:54 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
For static routes, assigning a tag to the routes and
referencing that in a route-map which is attached to a BGP
policy will get you what you want. The tag is useful to
ensure you don't end up redistributing more routes into BGP
than you should.
For
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
On 6/03/2012 9:46 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
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
On 6/03/2012 10:29 PM, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Have you tested whether having a dedicated route-map for the
IPv6 session works around this problem?
Yes - it doesn't work around it. I have just replicated the route-map
exactly but removed the IPv4 specific match (seq 10) from the new copy
and
12 matches
Mail list logo
