-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ian,
Thank you for the suggestion. I actually have the PBR stuff working. The thing I ended up missing was using an extended ACL. Every example I could find used standard ACLs. I was thinking it was a limitation or something. Anyway, so far things seem to be working as intended. I'll check into the VRF Lite stuff. If it will make life easier, I'm all for it. :) Thanks, Charlie - -----Original Message----- From: Ian Henderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 12:41 AM To: Charles J. Boening; [email protected] Subject: RE: [c-nsp] policy routing Charles J. Boening <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Saturday, 31 March 2007 12:52 PM: > Typical. I think I figured it out after I asked the question. > Didn't think about it before, but looks like I can match both the > source IP and the outbound interface and then set ip next-hop to > force the traffic to the right NAT router. Seems to prevent > inter-vlan routing between (2,3,4) and (4,5,6) and gets me my desired > result. Check out VRF Lite - it does exactly what you're after without the hassle of policy routing (nexthops going down, tracking, etc). Rgds, - - I. - -- Ian Henderson, CCIE #14721 Senior Network Engineer, iiNet Limited -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFGD2PwcGGHuFdGSWARAkrgAJ9eIzzPBJLjPxXYnr7fLaLDjlJKjwCdFeeK Cx5nByA7b5vRBfzCM7cEHAA= =hSa+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
