[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cisco-nsp
Subject:    Re: [c-nsp] PBR
From:       "Gary T. Giesen" <giesen () snickers ! org>
Date:       2010-07-29 1:35:15
Message-ID: AANLkTi=BjDVmpEequHAxx8gR5JM5iVxQHM+ccgTD_jxO () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I'm inclined to agree. VRF's are much easier to troubleshoot than PBR
when you have problems, as they use standard destination-based
routing. When you use PBR, looking at the routing table is virtually
meaningless.

GG

On 7/28/10, Jan Gregor <jan.gregor@chronix.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The 2811 has two connections coming in on ATM0/2/0 (binding to Di1) and
>> ATM0/3/0 (binding to Di0). I've got a small gaggle of VLANs. I'm trying
>> to get VLAN10 sending/receiving everything over Di1 and everything else
>> over Di0.
>
> just as a personal preference I would suggest using vrf-lite instead of
> pbr in your case.
> Other guys saying about tcp in pbr are of course right.
>
> Beste ragards,
>
> Jan
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]