Can I use standard ACL in route-map for BGP fall-over?

[hxmengmetro]

All,

I haven't got time to test different configurations yet. Just want to quickly ask here about the fall-over route-map configuration. I saw lots of example using pip prefix-list to specify the next-hop for tracking. Is that the only way you can do it? Can you just use a standard ACL to specify that host like permit host 10.2.2.2? ip prefix-list will do like ip prefix-list seq 5 permit 10.2.2.2/32. And you apply the prefix-list to route-map then. ACL will work?

Thanks.

Lou

[Reza Sharifi]

Lou,

The route map should not care if your access-list in standard or extended. It is just that standard access-list is only source based versus extended can be source, destination as well as TCP/UDP traffic type.

Please remember to tag your threads and help support "Teachers without Borders"

https://supportforums.cisco.com/community/netpro/idea-center/communityhelpingcommunity

HTH

[ebarticel]

Hi,

BGP uses standard access-list differently than normal ACLs works.

You can create an AS_PATH  access-list that works in same way as standard ACL.

As you know BGP uses path value to make decisions on routes to forward traffic

Example:   ip as-path access-list 1 deny ^100$ (will deny any packet that starts with AS 100 and end with AS 100)

                 ip as-path access list 1 permit .* (this matches any value, same as any any in standard ACL)

If this helps mark it as answered

Eugen