City fleet garage applies PBR with a route-map. Traffic that does not match a permit clause falls through. How is that unmatched traffic forwarded?

At the city fleet garage, when PBR uses a route-map and traffic does not match a permit clause (or otherwise falls through without a PBR set action), unmatched traffic uses normal destination-based routing from the RIB. PBR selectively overrides forwarding only for matched traffic; fall-through is intentional so ordinary fleet and civic flows keep following OSPF/BGP/static RIB entries. That behavior prevents PBR from becoming an implicit black hole for everything not explicitly matched.

Always dropping unmatched traffic and logging it as an STP incident is incorrect—unmatched fall-through is normal, and STP is unrelated. Redirecting unmatched traffic only to the OSPF DR on another VLAN invents a behavior PBR does not perform on fall-through. Hairpinning unmatched traffic through every wireless AP before forwarding is not how router PBR fall-through works.

Exam caveat: distinguish ACL deny inside a PBR match from 'no match': platform/route-map sequencing matters, but the ENCOR teaching point is that traffic not policy-routed reverts to destination-based routing. If the design requires dropping non-matching traffic, that must be explicit—not assumed. Also verify PBR is applied on the correct ingress interface in the garage path.

Operational check: send traffic that matches the fleet PBR permit and confirm the alternate next hop; send traffic that does not match and confirm RIB next hop via traceroute/CEF. Review route-map order so an early broad match does not accidentally catch traffic meant to fall through. Document the fall-through expectation for NOC so unmatched garage flows are not mistaken for PBR failure.