> On 13 feb. 2018 at 18:51, Luis Balbinot <[email protected]> wrote : > > What is even more misleading is that the MX accepts the transit configuration > and commits without warnings. I issued the commit on a standalone router but > tomorrow I'm going to setup a lab with 3 routers.
Well, there are plenty of config knobs that JunOS will happily and silently accept on any platform even if unsupported :) They will either don't do anything, or fuck up something, or do what you expect but without Juniper support/endorsement. Bet on one :P > Some docs mention that MPC-only chassis like the MX80 come with CNHs > configured as the default, but that's only true for ingress EVPN. And in fact it's for all MXs. Crappy doc. > I'm still confused :-) It's confusing. > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:56 Olivier Benghozi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Luis, > > I already wondered the same thing, and asked to our Juniper representative ; > the answer was that each family supports (and only supports) its specific > CCNH flavour: > CCNH for ingress: MX > CCNH for transit: PTX (I didn't asked for QFX10k). > Olivier > > > On 10 feb. 2018 at 19:17, Luis Balbinot <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote : > > > > I was reading about composite chained next hops and it was not clear to me > > whether or not MX routers support them for transit traffic. According to > > the doc bellow it's only a QFX10k/PTX thing: _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
