When creating a prefix-set for a route policy to be used in BGP would the following be functionally equivalent? Thanks!
192.168.0.0/16 ge 17
192.168.0.0/16 le 32
192.168.0.0/16 ge 17 le 32
Solved! Go to Solution.
They are not all functionally equivalent.
> 192.168.0.0/16 ge 17
prefix matches 192.168.0.0/16 and prefix-length is greater than 16
> 192.168.0.0/16 le 32
prefix matches 192.168.0.0/16 and prefix-length is greater than 15
> 192.168.0.0/16 ge 17 le 32
Functionally equivalent to the first one
Regards,
They are not all functionally equivalent.
> 192.168.0.0/16 ge 17
prefix matches 192.168.0.0/16 and prefix-length is greater than 16
> 192.168.0.0/16 le 32
prefix matches 192.168.0.0/16 and prefix-length is greater than 15
> 192.168.0.0/16 ge 17 le 32
Functionally equivalent to the first one
Regards,
Awesome! Thanks! I was having difficulty with the "le 32". I didn't realize that it was including the prefix length. Thank you again!