Question about Route-Map Behaviour

[c_frieler]

Hi all,

First time poster here.

Quick question about route-map behaviour.

I have a simple route-map configured as follows:

RTR# sh route-map test

route-map TEST, permit, sequence 10

  Match clauses:

      ip address (access-lists): 199

  Set clauses:

      ip next-hop 10.1.1.1

route-map TEST, permit, sequence 20

   Match clauses:

   Set clauses:

And a simple ACL of

  access-list 199 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any

Very straightforward.  If I have traffic coming in to an interface which has policy routing in place referencing this route-map, traffic coming from 10.0.0.0/24 will have its next-hop set to 10.1.1.1.  All other traffic will be routed 'normally'. 

My question is, what if the ACL (199) is deleted?  The reference to the ACL (199) stays in the route-map, and the interface is still policy routing using the route-map.  Will sequence 10, which matches on the access-list (which now doesn't exist), now match ALL traffic or NO traffic?  Resulting in, will ALL traffic have its next-hop set to 10.1.1.1, or will NO traffic have its next-hop set and instead just be routed using the ip routing table?

Thanks!

-Chris

[Peter Paluch]

Hi Chris,

It has been my experience that referencing a non-existent ACL results into permit any kind of action. This would mean that if the ACL 199 was deleted, all traffic would be matched by the first route-map block and would be PBRed to 10.1.1.1. Traffic would never hit the second route-map block.

Best regards,

Peter