PBR on Cisco 4500 x (cat4500e-universalk9.SPA.03.06.02.E.152-2.E2.bin)

[Steve Coady]

Hello

I am implementing pbr to force a specific SRC ip subnet in vrf_2 to use a next-hop in vrf_1.

4500x-1-#sh ip arp vrf vrf_1
Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Addr Type Interface
Internet 10.229.254.253 89 a80c.0dc0.fc3c ARPA Vlan229
Internet 10.229.254.254 176 a80c.0dc0.fe37 ARPA Vlan229
4500x-1-#
!
4500x-1-##sh ip arp vrf vrf_2
Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Addr Type Interface
Internet 31.2.62.24 0 0008.e3ff.fc10 ARPA TenGigabitEthernet2/1/1
Internet 31.2.62.25 - 0008.e3ff.fc28 ARPA TenGigabitEthernet2/1/1
4500x-1-##

Here is the config:

config t
!
access-list extended PBR-test ip 31.2.62.0 255.255.224.0 10.72.20.0 255.255.255.255
access-list extended PBR-test ip 31.2.62.0 255.255.224.0 10.72.20.0 255.255.255.255
!
route-map PBR-test 30
match ip address PBR-test
set vrf vrf_1
!
interface Te2/1/1                     Interface where 31.2.62.0 255.255.224.0 lives
ip policy route-map PBR-test
exit
!
sh run route-map
sh run access-list PBR-test
!
wr mem

My question:

Do I also need to add a second route-mapas follows?

      route-map PBR-test 300 deny

[Richard Burts · Accepted solution]

sMc

Perhaps I am missing something, but I see no reason to need another instance in the route map which is just a deny. There are some uses of route maps (perhaps redistribution of routes) where you have an instance with match and set clauses and then need another instance to provide normal processing for things that did not match the first clause. PBR does not need that.

HTH

Rick

[Steve Coady]

Thank you for the response

[Richard Burts]

sMc

You are welcome. I am glad that my response was helpful.

HTH

Rick