> On 13 feb. 2018 at 18:51, Luis Balbinot <l...@luisbalbinot.com> 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 <olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr 
> <mailto:olivier.bengh...@wifirst.fr>> 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 <l...@luisbalbinot.com 
> > <mailto:l...@luisbalbinot.com>> 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 juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Reply via email to