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
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
View solution in original post
Awesome! Thanks! I was having difficulty with the "le 32". I didn't realize that it was including the prefix length. Thank you again!
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: