cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
4233
Views
15
Helpful
18
Replies

Route map with continue clause

verma-rohit
Level 1
Level 1

Hello,

I was experimenting with route-map with continue clause, however the use of continue clause does not set well with my understanding of its processing.

set_clause.png

 

 

 

 

 

1. A route matches a match statement execute its configured set values and then jumps to other sequence number as per configured continue statement.

2. If next route-map sequence has no match statement, it should execute configured set action.

 

Topology.png

 

1. Access and Core are OSPF neighbors. 

2. On Core: 

Core#show ip ospf nei

Neighbor ID     Pri   State           Dead Time   Address         Interface
192.168.0.6       1   FULL/DR         00:00:39    10.0.128.2      GigabitEthernet0/2
Core#show ip route ospf
Codes: L - local, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area 
       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route, H - NHRP, l - LISP
       a - application route
       + - replicated route, % - next hop override, p - overrides from PfR

Gateway of last resort is not set

      192.168.0.0/32 is subnetted, 3 subnets
O        192.168.0.6 [110/2] via 10.0.128.2, 00:39:07, GigabitEthernet0/2
O E2  192.168.1.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.128.2, 00:39:07, GigabitEthernet0/2
      192.168.2.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
O E2     192.168.2.1 [110/20] via 10.0.128.2, 00:39:07, GigabitEthernet0/2
Core#
Core#

 

3. On Same Core, I have BGP configured to perform OSPF route  redistribution:

OSPF route on Core with TAG 2001
Core#show ip route 192.168.2.1
Routing entry for 192.168.2.1/32
  Known via "ospf 64501", distance 110, metric 20
  Tag 2001, type extern 2, forward metric 1
  Redistributing via bgp 64501
  Advertised by bgp 64501 route-map OSPF2BGP
  Last update from 10.0.128.2 on GigabitEthernet0/2, 00:50:55 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.0.128.2, from 192.168.0.6, 00:50:55 ago, via GigabitEthernet0/2
      Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1
Route tag 2001 Core#sh run | s r b router bgp 64501 bgp router-id 192.168.0.5 bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 10.0.0.2 remote-as 65001 neighbor 10.0.0.2 description Client neighbor 10.0.0.5 remote-as 64500 neighbor 10.0.0.5 description eBGP to Upstream ! address-family ipv4 network 10.0.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 network 192.168.0.5 mask 255.255.255.255 redistribute ospf 64501 route-map OSPF2BGP neighbor 10.0.0.2 activate neighbor 10.0.0.2 send-community neighbor 10.0.0.2 next-hop-self neighbor 10.0.0.2 route-map FromClient in neighbor 10.0.0.5 activate neighbor 10.0.0.5 send-community neighbor 10.0.0.5 next-hop-self exit-address-family Core#

4. Route-map on Core

Spoiler
Core#show route-map OSPF2BGP
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 10
  Match clauses:
    route-type external 
     tag 2000 
  Continue: to next entry 11
  Set clauses:
    community 64501:2 additive
    origin egp 64501
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 11
  Match clauses:
    route-type external 
  Continue: to next entry 20
  Set clauses:
    community 64501:2001 additive
    origin igp
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 20
  Match clauses:
  Set clauses:
    weight 200
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
Core#

Result:

On core, I anticipated BGP attributes for route 192.168.2.1 to have:

1. community 64501:2001 and origin as IGP

2. As there is continue configured on in seq 11, control moves to seq 20 and assign weight 200.

 

However , seq 20 is never executed it seems. Any reason why ?

Core#show ip bgp 192.168.2.1
BGP routing table entry for 192.168.2.1/32, version 8
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table default)
  Advertised to update-groups:
     4         
  Refresh Epoch 1
  Local
    10.0.128.2 from 0.0.0.0 (192.168.0.5)
      Origin IGP, metric 20, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best
      Community: 64501:2001
      rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0

 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Hello @verma-rohit ,

all the configuration examples in the shared link show route-maps applied to BGP neighbor statements for this use case the route-map continue command  has been introduced and supported.

The continue command is not supported in route-maps used for redistribution like in your tests and in the tests performed in the blog mentioned by Georg.

 

Hope to help

Giuseppe

 

View solution in original post

18 Replies 18

verma-rohit
Level 1
Level 1
Please ignore spoiler tag

Hello,

 

at first glance, I would say your match clauses in sequence 10 and 11 don't match, so 12 is never executed:

 

Core#show route-map OSPF2BGP
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 10
Match clauses:
route-type external
tag 2000
Continue: to next entry 11
Set clauses:
community 64501:2 additive
origin egp 64501
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 11
Match clauses:
route-type external
Continue: to next entry 20
Set clauses:
community 64501:2001 additive
origin igp
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 20
Match clauses:
Set clauses:
weight 200
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
Core#

 

Add the same tag to sequence 11:

 

Core#show route-map OSPF2BGP
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 10
Match clauses:
route-type external
tag 2000
Continue: to next entry 11
Set clauses:
community 64501:2 additive
origin egp 64501
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 11
Match clauses:
route-type external

--> tag 2000
Continue: to next entry 20
Set clauses:
community 64501:2001 additive
origin igp
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 20
Match clauses:
Set clauses:
weight 200
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
Core#

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback.

Well seq 11 did match because the said route is an external ( E2 )  route and as a result community  64501:2001  and origin was set as IGP. 

Hello,

 

what if you match sequence 20 as well ? I think the logic is that the match statements have to be the same for each sequence if you use the 'continue' but everything else that does NOT match the previous will get the weight you configured.

 

Core#show route-map OSPF2BGP
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 10
Match clauses:
route-type external
tag 2000
Continue: to next entry 11
Set clauses:
community 64501:2 additive
origin egp 64501
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 11
Match clauses:
route-type external
Continue: to next entry 20
Set clauses:
community 64501:2001 additive
origin igp
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 20Match clauses:

--> route-type external

Set clauses:
weight 200
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
Core#

Hi,

I did add match clause in seq 20, however  weight is still unchanged.

 

Core#show route-map OSPF2BGP
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 10
  Match clauses:
    route-type external 
     tag 2000 
  Continue: to next entry 11
  Set clauses:
    community 64501:2 additive
    origin egp 64501
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 11
  Match clauses:
    route-type external 
  Continue: to next entry 20
  Set clauses:
    community 64501:2001 additive
    origin igp
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
route-map OSPF2BGP, permit, sequence 20
  Match clauses:
    route-type external 
  Set clauses:
    weight 200
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
Core#
Core#show ip route 192.168.2.1
Routing entry for 192.168.2.1/32
  Known via "ospf 64501", distance 110, metric 20
  Tag 2001, type extern 2, forward metric 1
  Redistributing via bgp 64501
  Advertised by bgp 64501 route-map OSPF2BGP
  Last update from 10.0.128.2 on GigabitEthernet0/2, 00:35:47 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.0.128.2, from 192.168.0.6, 00:35:47 ago, via GigabitEthernet0/2
      Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1
      Route tag 2001
Core#show ip bgp 192.168.2.1
BGP routing table entry for 192.168.2.1/32, version 6
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table default)
  Advertised to update-groups:
     2         
  Refresh Epoch 1
  Local
    10.0.128.2 from 0.0.0.0 (192.168.0.5)
      Origin IGP, metric 20, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best
      Community: 64501:2001
      rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0

 

Hello,

 

I'll try to lab this...can you post the full running configs of both the access and the core router ?

Hi,

Files are attached , Shared below is the topology.

Topology2.png

I'll lab this up...thanks for the files.

Hello,

 

I ran into the same issue you had. For some reason, the 'continue' statement does not seem to work in route maps that are used in redistribution of routing protocols. The only way I got this to work is with the route map below (the 'additive' obviously is redundant). I did come across a document though that mirrors your setup. I am not sure if this is VIRL specific, and if the 'continue' clause works in e.g. XE.

 

Have a look at what this user noticed:

 

BGP Route Maps and Continue Feature Limitations

 

https://blog.ipspace.net/2016/05/bgp-route-maps-and-continue-feature.html

 

route-map OSPF2BGP permit 10
match tag 2000
match route-type external
set origin egp 64501
set community 64501:2 additive
!
route-map OSPF2BGP permit 11
match route-type external
set origin igp
set community 64501:2001 additive
!
route-map OSPF2BGP permit 11
match route-type external
set weight 200

Hello,

I have gone through the shared link. From the website:

The lack of support for continue clause was somewhat expected after reading the relevant IOS documentation, and without the continue clause it makes no sense using set community additive in a redistribution point (where source routes have no BGP communities).

Link: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/15-mt/irg-15-mt-book/irg-route-map-continue.html

Where exactly in shared link author talsk about " lack of support for continue clause" ?

Hello @verma-rohit ,

all the configuration examples in the shared link show route-maps applied to BGP neighbor statements for this use case the route-map continue command  has been introduced and supported.

The continue command is not supported in route-maps used for redistribution like in your tests and in the tests performed in the blog mentioned by Georg.

 

Hope to help

Giuseppe

 

Hello


@Giuseppe Larosa wrote:

The continue command is not supported in route-maps used for redistribution


I manage to test this last night and TBH it wasnt soemthing i was aware of, you would think it would be documented regards its restriction with redistribution or is this be something cisco will expect us to logically take into account


3700 Software (C3725-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 12.4(15)T14
7200 Software (C7200-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 15.2(4)M11, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2
IOSv Software (VIOS-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 15.8(3)M2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2
Cisco IOS Software [Fuji], Virtual XE Software (X86_64_LINUX_IOSD-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 16.9.1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)

% "TST" used as redistribute ospf into bgp route-map, continue match not supported
% not supported match will behave as route-map with no match
% "TST" used as redistribute ospf into bgp route-map, set community add not supported


Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.

Kind Regards
Paul

Hello @paul driver ,

your test results are exactly the same as those shown in the link

https://blog.ipspace.net/2016/05/bgp-route-maps-and-continue-feature.html

 

by Ivan Pepelnjack

 

this link was found by @Georg Pauwen  and reported in this thread. The source is rather reliable.

About the continue statement I remember it was introduced for BGP only.

There was another recent thread where the OP tried to use the continue in a route map used to redistribute into EIGRP wth no success.

In my humble opinion the OP of this thread is actually repeating the lab setup reported in that blog page with same results.

 

Hope to help

Giuseppe

 

 

@Giuseppe Larosa 

I don’t doubt the source isn’t viable mate especially coming from the likes Ivan it’s just quite frustrating  isn’t documented and I wasn’t aware this OP was plagiarized from IVAN post.

Anyway all good I have learnt something this morning I didn’t know last night!


Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.

Kind Regards
Paul
Review Cisco Networking for a $25 gift card