Before I start, I want to talk about the set up in my lab. I have router 1 connect to router 2 via the 192.168.1.0/24 network. Router 2 has five loopbacks 10.1.1.1/24; 10.1.2.1/24; 10.1.3.1/24; 10.1.4.1/24; 192.168.2.1/24. Both routers have configured EIGRP to include all networks in routing updates. Prior to applying the route map below, both routers have all routes in their routing tables. I applied the following distribution list out the interface that connects to R1:
!
router eigrp 1
network 10.0.0.0
network 192.168.1.0
network 192.168.2.0
distribute-list route-map mapprune10 out FastEthernet0/0
no auto-summary
!
ip prefix-list prune10 seq 10 deny 10.1.0.0/16 le 32
ip prefix-list prune10 seq 20 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
!
route-map mapprune10 permit 10
match ip address prefix-list prune10
R1 now only has routes for 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.2.0/24.
My question is: What is pruning the 10.1.x.0 routes? Is it the implicit deny all at the end of the route map or is it the sequence 10 statement in the prefix list?
My guess is that because i'm denying the 10.1.x.x routes in the prefix list, I'm saying "these are not to be considered in the route map" which ultimately leads them to be denied by the implicit deny all at the end of the route map.
Some background: I read this website and I think he's wrong. His blog seems to suggest the prefix list seq 10 statement causes the denial.
http://packetlife.net/blog/2010/feb/1/understanding-ip-prefix-lists/
Thanks a ton, looking forward to hearing what the experts think.
