Thanks for the replies :) Johan
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 17:10, Johan Borch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, > > > Would ACX-series be a good box for L2VPN terminations? I can't find any > > information that VPLS is supported yet, seems to be supported in some > 15.. > > version. Anyone with experience with for example filter/policy BUM > traffic > > and BPDUs? Do it have good control plane protection possibilities, > similtar > > to MX and not like EX. > > ACX covers many boxes with different HW. ACX2k is BRCM Enduro, as is > Cisco ASR901. My comments are about ACX2k. > > > VPLS is not supported, and I don't think it ever will be. > > Only way to protect control-plane would be forwarding filter where you > match local addresses or implementing it in all interfaces. So not > really. > > Firewall filters are funky, like you can't match to prefix-lists at > all, you have to enumerate all the addresses in the firewall filter > itself, which is peculiar, considering this is not HW feature. > IPV6 FW filters weren't supported at all when I tested them. > > Very few IFL can have counters enabled (disabled by default) > > Shaper calculates L2 rate, which I think is categorically wrong. > > > If you can live with the limitations, it can be useful and affordable > box, but be sure that the CAPEX benefit is sufficient to justify the > inherent complexity of running HW with limited HW capabilities. > > -- > ++ytti > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
