On (2011-12-27 23:28 +0100), Benny Amorsen wrote: > Certainly. What would be your preferred enhancement, just larger unit > numbers or the ability to have unit ID's with dots in?
Just larger unit numbers, it's most trivial to implement and will allow the use of the scheme you described, which I believe every one and their mum are using in IOS. I'm happy to add our contract# to the ER (since vendors tend to tell always 'no one else has requested this', which invariably is just poor communication), so contact me directly to get our details for the ER. It's exceedingly annoying that once you deploy JunOS, you need to develop some software to manage unit number/vlan mapping, when you can do it statelessly in IOS. > If the commit check error message is to be believed, larger unit ID's > are already available for certain interface types (demux0 and pp0). Yes. And there is no reason not to support it everywhere, if there ever was some IFL = CLI unit * IFD mapping relation, it's long gone. I don't suspect it ever had any hardware parallel TAZ-TBB-0(mahrouter vty)# show ifl brief ... 366 ge-1/2/0.500 VLAN Tagged Ethernet 0x000000000000c000 367 ge-1/2/0.501 VLAN Tagged Ethernet 0x000000000000c000 368 ge-1/2/0.2636 VLAN Tagged CCC/VLAN 0x0000000000005000 369 ge-1/2/0.32767 VLAN Tagged Ethernet 0x000000000400c000 370 ge-1/2/1.32767 VLAN Tagged Ethernet 0x000000000400c000 ... Thanks, -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
