Route-map based ip policy not working

Unanswered Question
Mar 13th, 2008
User Badges:

Hi,


I have one 1841 routes with 2 internet providers (ADSL routers connected to 1841 FE interfaces).

One of those is primary and other serves as backup connection. Default route is 192.168.1.1 and secondary is 192.168.2.1

I want to route all traffic from specific local hosts to secondary ISP, while maintaining all the rest through primary ISP. Used route-map based ip policy.

My problem is that policy seems to work OK for all traffic except POP3 and some IM applications.

Any clue about where may be the problem? My configuration follows:


interface FastEthernet0/0

ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0

ip nat outside

ip virtual-reassembly

zone-member security out-zone

duplex auto

speed auto

!

interface FastEthernet0/1

ip address 192.168.2.2 255.255.255.0

ip nat outside

ip virtual-reassembly

zone-member security out-zone

duplex auto

speed auto

!


interface Vlan1

description LAN$FW_INSIDE$

ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0

ip nat inside

ip virtual-reassembly

zone-member security in-zone

ip policy route-map ALPI

!


ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 track 123

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 250

!

access-list 109 permit ip host 192.168.0.66 any

!

route-map ALPI permit 10

match ip address 109

set ip next-hop 192.168.2.1

!



Thanks in advance for your help,

Albert Moran

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
Richard Burts Thu, 03/13/2008 - 13:18
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2017 LAN, WAN

After you posted this question in this forum you then posted this question in the WAN Routing and Switching forum where I have posted an answer. I suggest that any further discussion be consolidated in that forum.


HTH


Rick

piotrlit07 Fri, 03/14/2008 - 00:47
User Badges:

Sorry about the double post. At first I did not see my own post and though it was not sent correctly (my fault). When re-sending it, considered the other forum as more adequate.


Albert

Actions

This Discussion