I am not 100% sure here but it has been my understanding that the continue clause in route-maps is only effective when route-maps are used in redistribution or BGP routing policies (attribute modification). The continue clause is not inteded to be used in policy-based routing. That may explain the fact that in your route-map, it does not have any effect.
You are absolutely correct here. I apologize for my mistake.
Hmmmm, we have a problem here, then. For PBR, route-maps are the mandatory configuration component. However, specifying a multiple match of the same type will lead to a logical OR, exactly as you have shown. I was thinking of matching a class-map that can be configured in a match-all mode with multiple ACLs, but sadly, a route-map does not allow matching a class-map. And as you have demonstrated yourself, the continue clause is not working, either.
At this point, I am unable to provide any suggestion. I am not saying that there is no way of doing this but right now, I do not see any possible way of accomplishing that. If I come across anything useful I'll make sure to post it here.
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...