route-map prefix list and access-list

[Binu Steephen]

we have two routers runing eigrp A and B. C router running static route.A, B and C having common LAN and eigrp is enabled between A and B through the local LAN.

we are rediscbuting static to EIGRP with route map on A and B router.

from C router we have static route towards B router lan ip, "ip route 10.144.10.10 255.255.255.255  <B  router lan ip> and towards A router lan ip, 10.144.10.0 255.255.255.0 <A router local lan Ip>. this will help to route all traffic from C router to 10.144.10.10 through link connected on B router and remaonin all 10.144.10.0/24 through link connected on A router.

We need to apply static route to eigrp redistibution with routemap with source specific [presently no routemap in redistribution].

which is the best advisable way to either prefix list or access-list as match ip address in route-map. as we have 10.144.10.10/32 static route from C

[Richard Burts]

Binu

Based on what you have described I do not see any particular advantage in using prefix list. So my choice would be to control the redistribution using standard access list.

HTH

Rick

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Peter Paluch]

Rick,

Just my personal observation - I always recommend using prefix lists whenever possible. They are much more clear, their syntax is more concise and their evaluation is more effective than ACLs. The ACLs, especially the extended ACLs, are used in very weird ways by different routing update manipulations (e.g. distribute-lists match the source/destination pair as advertiser/network; route-maps match the source/destination pair as network/mask). Even for me, it is quite difficult to remember all the gotchas. So my general recommendation, when performing routing information manipulation, is to go with prefix-lists, even if the advantages are not so obvious. To me, one of the greatest advantages is their clarity.

Best regards,

Peter