I'm trying to configure a route-map that uses two match statements. I would like the set command to be issued only if both of them are true.
The first match is on next-hop IP. If the next-hop IP matches an IP I set in a standard ACL, I want it then to check for precedence critical. If that is also true, I want to set the next hop to take another path.
Unfortunately, when the router is evaluating my match statements, it issues the 'set' command as soon as one of the statements is true. It doesn't move on to the second one. This directly is in conflict with the following exerpt from Cisco's web site:
"Policy Route Maps
Each entry in a route map statement contains a combination of match and set clauses/commands. The match clauses define the criteria for whether appropriate packets meet the particular policy (that is, the conditions to be met). The set clauses than explain how the packets should be routed once they have met the match criteria.
For each combination of match and set commands in a route map statement, all sequential match clauses must be met simultaneously by the packet for the set clauses to be applied. There may be multiple sets of combinations of match and set commands in a full route map statement."
Now, unfortunately, the document seems to contradict itself in the next section:
"Match Clauses---Defining the Criteria
The IP standard or extended ACLs can be used to establish the match criteria. The standard IP access lists can be used to specify the match criteria for source address; extended access lists can be used to specify the match criteria based on application, protocol type, TOS, and precedence.
The match clause feature has been extended to include matching packet length between specified minimum and maximum values. The network administrator can then use the match length as the criterion that distinguishes between interactive and bulk traffic (bulk traffic usually has larger packet sizes).
The policy routing process proceeds through the route map until a match is found. If no match is found in the route map, or the route map entry is made a deny instead of a permit, then normal destination-based routing of the traffic ensues."
Basically I need to ensure that both match statements are true, based on next-hop and prededence, before issuing my set command. Does anyone know how to accomplish this?