Routes from BGP network statements are not tagged same as other BGP routes?

Question

I have a question if BGP treats the routes it advertised by using the network statements the same way as the routes it learned or redistributed.
Here is what I did:
bgp 65113
network 1.2.3.4 mask 255.255.255.0
redistribute static route-map STATIC_INTO_BGP
ip route 1.2.3.4 255.255.255.0 null0
ip route ....
route-map STATIC_INTO_BGP permit 10
match ip address prefix-list STATIC_INTO_BGP
set community 65113:100
I had all the static routes, including the one to null0, in the prefix-list STATIC_INTO_BGP. So those routes could be tagged with the community value.
I found out that all the routes in the prefix list were tagedd correctly except for the one to null0 (the one advertised by the BGP network statement). I had to create a seperate prefix list just for this route and add to the route map to have it tagged correctly.
So my question is: is this how BGP supposed to function or did I do it incorrectly?
Thanks a lot
Gary

Answer 1

Thanks all for the help. I agree that if the static route is redistributed into BGP, there's no need to have a BGP network statement again.
How about this scenario:
I have a static route:
ip route 1.2.3.0 255.255.255.0 null0
I don't redistribute it into BGP, instead I use a network statement:
bgp xxxxx
network 1.2.3.0 mask 255.255.255.0
I create a prefix list and route map to tag it:
ip prefix-list set-community permit 1.2.3.0/18 le 32
route-map set-community permit 10
match ip address prefix-list set-community
set community xxxxx:100
Would this set the right community for 1.2.3.0/24 (and other length in the range 18-32)? IN thise case, I used a network statement not a redistribution.
Thansk
Gary