> how about like management networks on ss7 deployments? > Not sure I correctly understand how the analogy from IP world should look like. I can imagine a network of, say, access devices whether L2 or L3, for which OOB mgt is really needed. But I don't know much people who use dedicated mgt ports for this, first because it's usually copper, second because it requires a dedicated line. Most implementations I saw used the mgt-vlan-based approach. We've even seen here a discussion on OSPF design for this a couple of weeks ago. Yes, sure, I agree, it's a good idea to place the correspondent RVI into a VR/VRF/whatever. Second, I am not sure this device (even if it's L3 and fxp0 is used) needs to send any transit packets towards the management machines, if so — no problem with "routing conflict".
> Hell, you could even envision something like this in the world of servers: > > ilom (sun), drac (dell), hp-whatever-the-hell... > Yes, we have such a thing for routers. Called console port :) BTW It's called iLO2 for HP. These toys usually require a license for graphic support, JVM, weigh a couple hundreds of extra megabytes and is totally different for different vendors. Not sure I want this in JUNOS :) Moreover the copper 1G ports for this toys are becoming a problem for DCs moving towards all-ten-gig. in 2011, we CAN have more than routing table on a single device, yes? > I am not arguing, that support of software-based VRs for fxp0 in JUNOS would be useful. I just can't understand why people want so much to plug the MGT network right into the control plane. What for? Just because they paid for this port on RE? Why not use a normal interface, which does not require any additional wiring and you can put into VRF or anywhere you wish? _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
