On 21/Jun/16 08:55, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
> this is not entirely correct: Hey Oli. There you are. Long time no see :-). > > 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)# I suppose this makes sense, because in Junos, I can define a source routing protocol for BGP to reference when writing an import or export routing policy. I tried this once in IOS and IOS XE, and I think the only source that worked well for my use-case was "from Local". Other routing protocols seemed to behave strangely. Same for IOS XR, which took me by surprise considering RPL allows you to define source routing protocols. In Junos, I can define the source protocol as being "Static", and then adding "Tag" as another match condition within the same policy to extract static routes that contain the specific tag. So I suppose the actual limitation here is telling the route map to support "Static" as a match condition. Thanks for the tip, anyway. And good to see you back here :-). Mark. _______________________________________________ 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/