Set clause semantics with Multi-VRF selection using PBR

Unanswered Question
Dec 9th, 2008

I am trying to figure out the semantic/operational differences between some of the set clauses used with Multi-VRF selection using Policy Based Routing (PBR).

Specifically, I am trying to figure what the difference is between this:

route-map Applied-to-a-VRF-Interface permit 100

match ip address 100

set global

set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1

and this:

route-map Applied-to-a-VRF-Interface permit 100

match ip address 100

set ip global next-hop 192.168.0.1

where:

interface Gig5/2

ip vrf forwarding NewVRF

ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0

ip policy route-map Applied-to-a-VRF-Interface

I've read the documentation found here http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2sr/12_2srb/feature/guide/srb2mvrf.html#wp1053934, but I don't quite follow the semantic differences between the "set global" clause followed by a "set ip next-hop" clause and the "set ip global next-hop" clause.

I have a particular application on a 6509 running 12.2(33)SXH3 whereby when I use the "set ip global next-hop" clause my traffic is getting software-switched but when I do a "set global / set ip next-hop" on different lines that the traffic is getting hardware switched. I just want to make sure I understand the difference with how these clauses are interpreted by the 6509 hardware.

I'm assuming that using the "set vrf" and "set ip vrf" syntax is conceptually the same as in the "global" instance.

Any ideas?

Clarke Morledge

College of William and Mary

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.

Actions

This Discussion