Which would be the first logical step to take?

Refer to the exhibit. Based upon the configuration,you need to understand why the policy
routing match counts are not increasing.
Which would be the first logical step to take? Select the best response.
R1#show route-map divert
route-map dirvert, permit, sequence 1
Match clauses:
ip address (access-lists): 101
Set clauses:
ip next-hop 212.50.185.126
ip next-hop recursive 192.0.0.1
ip default next-hop 212.50.185.125
Policy routing matches: 0 packets. 0 bytes

Refer to the exhibit. Based upon the configuration,you need to understand why the policy
routing match counts are not increasing.
Which would be the first logical step to take? Select the best response.
R1#show route-map divert
route-map dirvert, permit, sequence 1
Match clauses:
ip address (access-lists): 101
Set clauses:
ip next-hop 212.50.185.126
ip next-hop recursive 192.0.0.1
ip default next-hop 212.50.185.125
Policy routing matches: 0 packets. 0 bytes

A.
Confirm if there are other problematic route-map statements that precede divert.

B.
Check the access list for log hits.

C.
Check the routing table for 212.50.185.126.

D.
Remove any two of the set clauses. (Multiple set clause entries will cause PBR to use
the routing table.)

Explanation:
First we should check the access-list log, if the hit count does not increase then no packets
are matched the access-list -> the policy based routing match counts will not increase.



Leave a Reply 0

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *