Ok, thanks to all the people who helped me out with my gated.conf problems. Although not exactly what I needed to know at the time, it did teach me a lot about what I was trying to do, and the rest came a little easier. One problem I'm having, is I've got several regular expression statemenst I'm trying to use to filter my routes to one of my upstream carriers. I had a t1 to this upstream to test out how much we liked their network, and now we're moving up to oc-3 to them. What we've done is purchased a GRF for this link, and run the ATM into it. I'd like to duplicate the as-path access-list for the oc-3. The Cisco config follows. ip as-path access-list 31 deny _3831_ ip as-path access-list 31 deny _701_ ip as-path access-list 31 deny _114_ ip as-path access-list 31 deny _6302_ ip as-path access-list 31 deny ^4259 .* ip as-path access-list 31 deny ^3817 .* ip as-path access-list 31 permit .* These do the job on my network, and I'm happy with them. On the GRF, I've done this to try and duplicate them: export proto bgp as 3831 { proto bgp aspath 3831 origin any { all restrict; }; proto bgp aspath 701 origin any { all restrict: }; proto bgp aspath 6302 origin any { all restrict: }; proto bgp aspath 4259 .* origin any { all restrict; }; proto bgp aspath 3817 .* origin any { all restrict; }; proto bgp aspath .* origin any { all }; }; Could someone please explain to me why this doesn't work? I'm at wits end. For some reason, I've gotten no response from the gated mailing list, and I really haven't had the time till now to check why. Any help would definitely be appreciated. Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services #!/usr/bin/perl # Standard Disclaimer to keep Joe from getting in trouble again. print (" ***Disclaimer***\n"); print (" The opinions of Joe Shaw are not necessarily those of Insync\n"); print (" Internet Services or of any of it's other employees. If you\n"); print (" wish to quote me on anything, please feel free, but remove\n"); print (" Insync's name from it.\n"); "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee On 9 Sep 1997, Michael Shields wrote:
In article <199709092102.RAA18271@Iodine.Mlink.NET>, Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET> wrote:
Maybe that should be even more the standard practice. There is nothing to lose in allocating in the order .0, .128, .64, .192, .32, .96, .160, .224 instead of .0, .32, .64, .96, .128, .160, .192, .224.
Sounds similar to what was suggested in RFC 1219 over six years ago. -- Shields, CrossLink.