According to the SG there are two ROUTE-MAPs.
But i think so one will do the same because we are mapping same prefix-list to two route-maps.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
Yes it is correct.
Good luck with your studies!
I agree with you!!!
I also use single route-map for both BGP neighbors
Instead of redistribution, could we have just added a network statement? What in the task wording leads us to believe that the static route needs to be redistributed?
router bgp 65145
network 22.214.171.124 mask 255.255.0.0
Yes you inedeed can. Actually, the SG mentioned that both way ways work, but using network statement or "controlled redistribution with tage based route-maps" is preferred in real world scenarios. The SG used uncontrolled redistribution which is simple & valid solution.
Agreed with Bassam!
I always use the network statement on production networks as it is more elegant. In the lab you can choose whatever you want, as long as it does not violate any restrictions.
Just my 2 cents
I created an Aggregate and it seemed to work ok, Any thoughts on doing it this way?
ip route 126.96.36.199 255.255.0.0 null0
ip prefix-list DENY_SUMMARY seq 5 deny 188.8.131.52/16
ip prefix-list DENY_SUMMARY seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
route-map DENY_SUMMARY permit 10
match ip address prefix-list DENY_SUMMARY
set ip next-hop peer-address
network 184.108.40.206 mask 255.255.0.0
neighbor 220.127.116.11 route-map DENY_SUMMARY out
neighbor 18.104.22.168 route-map DENY_SUMMARY out
aggregate-address 22.214.171.124 255.255.0.0
router bgp 65267
neighbor 126.96.36.199 route-map DENY_SUMMARY out
neighbor 188.8.131.52 route-map DENY_SUMMARY out