The configuration seems reasonable (which is the most that I can say since there is much that we do not know about the switch). My first question would be about the configured next hop. Is 10.250.254.190 a valid address, is it on a connected interface, and is it reachable (can you ping it)?
It is interesting that local policy is working fine. Does it use the same route map as the interface policy routing? Perhaps we will need to see more of the switch config to figure out what is the problem.
show ip local policy Local policy routing is enabled, using route map test route-map test, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): test Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.250.254.191 Nexthop tracking current: 0.0.0.0 10.250.254.191, fib_nh:0,oce:0,status:0
Policy routing matches: 46 packets, 3110 bytes
show ip access-lists test Extended IP access list test 10 permit ip 10.251.60.0 0.0.0.255 any (46 matches)
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3.
16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted
towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are
looking for early feedback from customers befor...
Introduction Featured Speakers Luis Espejel is the Telecommunications
Manager of IENova, an Oil & Gas company. Currently he works with Cisco
IOS® and Cisco IOS XE platforms, and NX to some extent. He has also
worked as a Senior Engineer with the Routing P...
In this session you can learn more about Layer 3 multicast and the best
practices to identify possible threats and take security measures. It
provides an overview of basic multicast, the best security practices for
use of this technology, and recommendati...