On 2/Sep/19 10:52, Brandon Martin wrote: > > I try to avoid them in customer-facing applications, too. And in > intra-network situations, I don't know why you'd be LAGging 1Gbps > links anymore. In the backbone, we moved away from LAG's to ECMP. The only places we run Layer 2 LAG's is on switch<=>router trunks (in the edge), and of course, on peering routers facing the exchange point. > > But yeah, MX204 and similar LCs on the chassis platforms have some > bizarre port usage/speed limitations. Juniper has a little web page > to validate your port configurations, but it still seems easy to hit > gotchas like this. You need to have regular lunches with your Juniper SE to get on top of this :-)... Mark.
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aaron
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Martin
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aaron
- Re: Mx204 alternative Saku Ytti
- Re: Mx204 alternative Stephen Fulton
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Martin
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka
- Re: Mx204 alternative Hank Nussbacher
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Martin
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aled Morris via NANOG
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aled Morris via NANOG
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka
- Re: Mx204 alternative Gavin Henry
- RE: Mx204 alternative Phil Lavin
- Re: Mx204 alternative Valdis Klētnieks
- Re: Mx204 alternative [email protected]
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Butterworth
- Re: Mx204 alternative Kenneth McRae via NANOG

