-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oliver,
>> route-map foo permit 10 >> match ip next-hop foo >> match ipv6 next-hop bar >> >> Would that match v4 or v6, depending on the address type? >> > > haven't checked in the lab, but strictly speaking, the above map would > require both conditions to be met, which is not possible for any given > prefix ;-) so I doubt this works. I was able to test it in a lab after I sent the email, and it did not work. I ended up using the route-map example you show below as a work-around. > route-map foo permit 10 > match ip next-hop foo > route-map foo permit 20 > match ipv6 next-hop bar > However this could become cumbersome, so maybe better use distinct > route-maps? I went through an exercise to move all of our peer-groups to peer-templates since peer-templates can be shared between v4 and v6 neighbors and I could avoid policy/session duplication, so I wanted to share route-maps too. :) The majority of our route-map statements match base on community, so I added another match statement for the v6 next-hop and did not have to create duplicate route-maps. Thanks for your response! - -- Devon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1MeH0ACgkQWP2WrBTHBS8uPACeIZy1fLcudXPOxfQe+fzZLElD mZoAoN0rzn417EjvVFHiImwGedduPUAZ =2dLq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/