I hope the 128k RIB/FIB limitation is not correct. But who knows.. vMX is
essentially vaporware to me at this point.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Blundell
david.blund...@100percentit.com wrote:
Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN
limitations?
The
On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Tarko Tikan ta...@lanparty.ee wrote:
hey,
The issue with such well, that sounds easy solutions is what it
does to system scale. In the days of 2G 32-bit RPD, the addition of
a single*word* (4 bytes) to the route data structures was reason for
massive
hey,
We are shipping an SMP kernel in the 15.x timeframe. Even with no
daemon changes, it helps by spreading the load of the daemons to some
extent.
From engineering perspective, what will break if you just enable SMP
kernel?
I would expect processes to be spread to different cores (with
Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN limitations?
The Juniper datasheet at
http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf says
the parts VMX-100M to VMX-500M Includes all features in full scale which I
take to mean they can handle as many
I was first told that vMX would ship with it's own Hypervisor. Then I heard it
would ship as ESXi images. Ok, that's fine.
But, alas, I have to install Ubuntu and run it as KVM guests? This is not what
I was expecting. I wonder if VMware is on ge roadmap? Does anyone know?
On Jul 29,
So what's the use case... Run this as the local RR? Or manage routes between
tenants in compute?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:44 AM, David Blundell david.blund...@100percentit.com
wrote:
Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN limitations?
The
Dear Experts,
Can you please explain what happen let say when MX-480 routers or ACX-1100
reach it maximum operational temperature (I believe around 65 degrees
Celsius). Will it shut down it's chassis when this happen? What happen when
the temperature become normal again?
Regards,
Jerry
Alexander Arseniev wrote:
The FC in JUNOS is the same as qos-group in CSCO IOS - invisible
internal-only field which travels along with packet content across the
switch, but is never inserted in the actual packet. The FC has
significance for choosing output scheduling, RED drop,
Hello,
SCU can be used in this scenario
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.2/topics/task/configuration/scu-or-dcu-configuring-junos-nm.html
To drop traffic matching your chosen SCU in a firewall filter, use
set forwarding-options family inet filter output YouRscUfilteRname
Gents,
good day.
A customer of mine has in production MX480, SRX3600 (cluster via WAN L2
among the two DC), EX8200 in all of the two DC and is asking me a
confirmation that it is currently possible to simulate a Disaster Recovery
issue just powering-off the devices without correct halting.
On 29/Jul/15 11:48, james list wrote:
Gents,
good day.
A customer of mine has in production MX480, SRX3600 (cluster via WAN L2
among the two DC), EX8200 in all of the two DC and is asking me a
confirmation that it is currently possible to simulate a Disaster Recovery
issue just
I'm wondering if there is any official statement about this from Juniper...
2015-07-29 11:53 GMT+02:00 Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu:
On 29/Jul/15 11:48, james list wrote:
Gents,
good day.
A customer of mine has in production MX480, SRX3600 (cluster via WAN L2
among the two
On 29/Jul/15 13:52, james list wrote:
I'm wondering if there is any official statement about this from
Juniper...
Not sure what you mean by official, but as with any manual for an
electronic product, you will get some basic operational guidelines in
there. You know, something along the lines
On Jul 29, 2015, at 5:53 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
We once experienced a complete power outage to some MX480 devices that
caused MPC failure. Those had to be replaced.
I would suspect that this was caused by a power fluctuation just before the
power outage -- a surge
[Note that this is where I go off into speculative thinking land. Those who
know me from conferences are familiar with the process, but I'd really rather
not have someone note my email address and think they should start hammering on
product management as a result of such public discussion.]
hey,
The issue with such well, that sounds easy solutions is what it
does to system scale. In the days of 2G 32-bit RPD, the addition of
a single*word* (4 bytes) to the route data structures was reason for
massive freak-out. Even in 3G 32-bit RPD, it's problematic.
We're now in the land of
Tim,
On Jul 28, 2015, at 6:49 PM, tim tiriche tim.tiri...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Goal: on transit provider link, allow ASN XYZ to reach port 80 and drop all
other destined to port 80?
I don't want to build a static filter as ASN XYZ could have additional
updates.
Not sure if
Once upon a time, james list jameslis...@gmail.com said:
A customer of mine has in production MX480, SRX3600 (cluster via WAN L2
among the two DC), EX8200 in all of the two DC and is asking me a
confirmation that it is currently possible to simulate a Disaster Recovery
issue just powering-off
On 29 Jul 2015, at 21:02, Jeff Haas wrote:
I don't have a clean answer, but it's leading me to ponder some.
Just origin and/or destination AS would be useful in and of themselves,
irrespective of further pathing options. . .
---
Roland Dobbins
19 matches
Mail list logo
