> -----Original Message----- > From: juniper-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Saku Ytti > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Mixed Cisco/Juniper MPLS network > > I'd only use separate blocks if I specifically have next-hops which MUST > NOT be label switched (I don't have, but some prefer INET not to be label > switched, so they run INET to different loopback than VPNv4) > In your case, it seems it would make more sense to figure out what the > actual problem is and then go back to flat/static ACL for all core loops. > > Maybe add one less used non-MPLS box as allowed and reserve some > additional > resourced to help troubleshooting when problem is in effect.
So what you're saying is that there is definitely some other issue here and it's not necessarily the fact that the destinations are allocated labels, but rather the label allocation is exposing an underlying problem. If so, that narrows it down and points me in the right direction. I'm trying to replicate in the lab, as I just had an idea, thanks to your response. -evt _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
