Was it mandatory to add the "permit ip any any" statement to the ACL? I think that the implicit deny wouldn't discard other traffic anyways. That is because the ACL is referenced in a route map that is referenced by the PBR which is not about filtering. Same for the route-map. Am I wrong? Great video btw
+Ramatoulaye BAKHOUM You probably already know this, but you're right. There was no need to "permit ip any any" as an ACL applied to the ROUTE MAP statement does not discard traffic like it does when applied to an interface. the permitted IP address in the ACL, matches the action of the ROUTE MAP statement (permit/deny). Therefore the implied "deny ip any any" at the end of the ACL simply denies all other traffic from being accessed by the ROUTE MAP's.
Your track object was "undefined" because you typed in "track 10" in the ROUTE MAP statement (for PBR) but you created a tracking object "1" instead. hence undefined.
good example I used the same example and i am trying to route the traffic of port 80 through R1 and and traffic of port 25 through R3. It doesnot work. all traffic are passed throug the same route. It just work when the link that pass the traffic is being down
I think the reason why your ping test didn't fail like you wanted it to was because ping uses port 7 and you only have port 80 traffic being forced to router 1. I believe your pings were traveling to their destination via R4 - R3 - R5. Source: www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/ip/ports00000.htm
Good stuff Rob, thanks for sharing.
Good video Rob, I enjoyed it, thank you. Making perfect videos isn't easy, but I still got what you meant 👌
Was it mandatory to add the "permit ip any any" statement to the ACL? I think that the implicit deny wouldn't discard other traffic anyways. That is because the ACL is referenced in a route map that is referenced by the PBR which is not about filtering.
Same for the route-map.
Am I wrong?
Great video btw
+Ramatoulaye BAKHOUM You probably already know this, but you're right. There was no need to "permit ip any any" as an ACL applied to the ROUTE MAP statement does not discard traffic like it does when applied to an interface. the permitted IP address in the ACL, matches the action of the ROUTE MAP statement (permit/deny). Therefore the implied "deny ip any any" at the end of the ACL simply denies all other traffic from being accessed by the ROUTE MAP's.
Your track object was "undefined" because you typed in "track 10" in the ROUTE MAP statement (for PBR) but you created a tracking object "1" instead. hence undefined.
good example
I used the same example and i am trying to route the traffic of port 80 through R1 and and traffic of port 25 through R3. It doesnot work. all traffic are passed throug the same route. It just work when the link that pass the traffic is being down
I think the reason why your ping test didn't fail like you wanted it to was because ping uses port 7 and you only have port 80 traffic being forced to router 1. I believe your pings were traveling to their destination via R4 - R3 - R5.
Source: www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/ip/ports00000.htm