On 05/06/12 15:43, Brent Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Wats the product? EX Series switches responsible and couldn't protect?
They're MX960's (with a Trio loadout) See: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/presentations/Wednesday/Cobb.pdf > More likely that someone didn't filter advertisements or re-distribution > correctly, rather than a software bug. > Only more details will tell, TFA was pretty lame. > Also a shame they already blame Juniper, when it sounds like they have > barely begun diagnosing what truly happened, not very classy at all > (especially if it turns out to be operator error). Except that Juniper pretty much built this (according to friends-of-friends), so it's either Juniper engineer error or JunOS bug. At the very least Juniper would be fully aware of the config. -- Julien Goodwin Studio442 "Blue Sky Solutioneering"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
