Rohde & Schwarz GP-E - Overall Sorting

Application Examples
R&S
®
GP-E/GP-S
151User Manual v16.2.1 ─ 01
ber is selected. Policy_3 takes priority over Policy_4 because a smaller port range
is selected.
"Name" "Routing Target" "Destination
Address"
"Protocol" "Source Ports"
Policy_1 eth0 10.10.10.0/24 TCP 60
Policy_2 eth7 10.10.0.0/16 TCP 60
As these routes have identical port numbers, the system compares the destination IP
addresses. Policy_1 takes priority over Policy_2 because the destination IP
address is more specific.
"Name" "Routing Target" "Destination
Address"
"Protocol" "Source Ports"
Policy_1 eth0 10.10.0.0/24 TCP 60
Policy_2 eth7 192.168.10.0/24 TCP 60
Policy_1 takes priority over Policy_2 because both destination IP addresses have
the same subnet mask but the first octet in Policy_1 (10) is smaller than in
Policy_2 (192).
4.8.3 Overall Sorting
"Name" "Routing Target" "Destination
Address"
"Protocol" "Destination
Ports"
Policy_1 eth0 TCP 2000
Policy_2 eth7 10.10.0/24 TCP 3000
Policy_1 takes priority over Policy_2 because there is a difference in the most
important selector: The destination port in Policy_1 is lower than the one in
Policy_2.
"Name" "Routing Target" "Destination
Address"
"Protocol" "Destination
Ports"
Policy_2 eth7 10.10.0/24 TCP 2000
Policy_1 eth0 TCP 2000
Policy_2 takes priority over Policy_1 because now that the destination port is
equal, the more specific destination IP address in Policy_2 counts.
Sorting Policy-Based Routes