arx06

[pc_evans]

It appears the exhibit forgot to name the route-maps.

the route-map is named 'deny'  

the second route-map is named 'permit'

neither route-map contains a permit or deny clause.  GNS3 shows that Route-maps can be configured without a permit or deny clause.  Configuring a route-map this way results in an implicit permit.

The exhibit is either wrong, or the answers are wrong.

If we assume the route-maps are intended to be named 'deny' and 'permit' we do not know which route map is applied.




!!! Route-map named 'deny' with no permit/deny clause defaults to permit
R4(config)#route-map ?
  WORD  Route map tag

R4(config)#route-map deny ?
  <0-65535>  Sequence to insert to/delete from existing route-map entry
  deny      Route map denies set operations
  permit    Route map permits set operations
  <cr>

R4(config)#route-map deny 10
R4(config-route-map)#match address 10
R4(config-route-map)#do sh route-map
route-map deny, permit, sequence 10
  Match clauses:
    ip address (access-lists): 10
  Set clauses:
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes

!!! route-map named 'deny' with a deny clause denies any match.

R5(config)#route-map deny deny 10
R5(config-route-map)#match address 10
R5(config-route-map)#do sh route-map
route-map deny, deny, sequence 10
  Match clauses:
    ip address (access-lists): 10
  Set clauses:
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes