For Policy routing, If route maps are written with permit:
packets matching a match statement are policy routed, packets don't match a statement are not policy routed, if a route-map block contains only set statements, these sets are applied. And there's an implicit deny at the end of the route-maps like ACLs. If statements are written with deny, packets matching are routed normally.
I understand the permit and deny part. What is confusing is the first part that states that if nothing matches then all the set clauses are applied?? That seems to contradict the reason for a route-map to begin with.
If a route-map used for policy routing consists of a permit entry whinch includes no match statements and some set statements, it's accepted match and set clauses are applied. I think this is what is meant. It can be thought as a way of overriding implicit deny of route-maps.
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 custome...