Policy routing takes precedence over standard routing and NAT. Therefore, if the subnets to be translated were routed in some other way, you run into the problem of "which comes first", which the route maps solve. (For example, a default route will be processed before the NAT command). They're also a way to hide routing from the routing table (although I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to do that, he said, tongue-in-cheek) see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/556/5.html to see the order of preference that Cisco uses in IOS for determining packet processing in a router. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Taylor" To: Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:49 PM Subject: NAT: list or route-map? [7:1563] > Hi, > > I have a question about the following configuration: > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/quicktip.html > > What is the benefit of using the route-map to define what/what not to > translate? Maybe I'm missing something simple, but it seems that you could > simply use the list (175) to do the same thing, avoiding the extra route-map > config completely. > > Thanks for any insight. > > Mike > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=2186&t=1563 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
