Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40?

On 19/Apr/16 04:01, Satish Patel wrote: > Thanks mark, > > I asked my friend and he said its CPE router not good for aggregation. Has your friend actually used the ASR920? Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40?

Thanks mark, I asked my friend and he said its CPE router not good for aggregation. As per spaces ASR 920 looks pretty solid. -- Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 18, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > >> On 18/Apr/16 15:39, Satish Patel wrote: >> >> Other cheap

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 18 April 2016 at 16:23, Aaron wrote: > What is the difference between these 2 ?...they seem very similar > > QFX5100 > AXC5048 Juniper does this multi-brand strategy in many boxes, you can add EX to that mix too, three boxes with different branding for different market

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

On 19 Apr 2016, at 2:26 am, Alexander Arseniev wrote: > Hello, > If You are doing the below JUNOS config on Olive, L2circuit data plane does > not work on Olive. > And it never worked on Olive, to my knowledge. > HTH > Thx > Alex +1 L2-features have never worked on

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

Yes it does. Olive + L2VPN is a special case since only Intel PRO 100 (fxp0) and Interl PRO 1000 (em0) NICs are supported by Olive, and AFAIK, these cards firmware doesn't support L2VPN data plane operations. Olive + L3VPN does work fine, both control and data plane. Thx Alex On 18/04/2016

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

you didn't tell me whether you wanted rfc4761 or rfc4762, so i'm giving you both of my scenario notes...make sure you prove this out before going live with it. These were my notes from when I tested this in my lab last year… hopefully I didn’t leave to much out and you can make sense of this…

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

Thanks Alex, does it work on vMX ? Aaron -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Arseniev Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:26 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper Hello, If

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

Hello, If You are doing the below JUNOS config on Olive, L2circuit data plane does not work on Olive. And it never worked on Olive, to my knowledge. HTH Thx Alex On 18/04/2016 13:32, Mohammad Khalil wrote: I have configured the below set interfaces em0 mtu 1514 set interfaces em0 unit 0

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

Thanks aaron What am trying to do is l2vpn or l2circuit (vpls or xconnect) between asr9k and mx Thanks in advance On Apr 18, 2016 6:17 PM, "Aaron" wrote: > I tested VPLS a few months back and I'm pretty sure I have some configs... > > WARNING! - I recall something very bad

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

I tested VPLS a few months back and I'm pretty sure I have some configs... WARNING! - I recall something very bad happened in my network during this testing evolutionwhen configuring the routing-instance in Junos for the vpls piece, I discovered that when I set the routing-instance (name)

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

On 18/Apr/16 15:23, Aaron wrote: > Oh, yeah I think that was my question... > > What is the difference between these 2 ?...they seem very similar > > QFX5100 > AXC5048 AFAIK, BU and a bit of Junos code. But someone else may chime in with more data. Mark.

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40?

Other cheap option I have Cisco ASR 920 which has 2 10G fiber port. It hold 20k routes limit but any way we are planning to run default router over BGP Does this router has 20G traffic performance? -- Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 18, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Edward Dore >

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

Oh, yeah I think that was my question... What is the difference between these 2 ?...they seem very similar QFX5100 AXC5048 Aaron -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Raphael Mazelier Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 4:57 AM To:

Re: [j-nsp] QFX10002 as P Router

Please remind me, how is the QFX different from the ACX5048/5096 ? they seem similar Aaron -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Giuliano Medalha Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:51 AM To: Mark Tinka Cc:

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

I have configured the below set interfaces em0 mtu 1514 set interfaces em0 unit 0 family inet address 192.168.101.10/24 set interfaces em0 unit 0 family mpls mtu 1500 set interfaces em1 vlan-tagging set interfaces em1 unit 100 encapsulation vlan-ccc set interfaces em1 unit 100 vlan-id 100 set

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

Thanks Steinar So we are talking about xconnect from Cisco side and l2circuit from Juniper side right? Do you have a running template please? Thanks in advance BR, Mohammad On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:49 PM, wrote: > > Am trying to configure MPLS L2VPN between Cisco and

Re: [j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

> Am trying to configure MPLS L2VPN between Cisco and Juniper > I know in Cisco VPLS and xconnect > In juniper l2vpn and l2circuit (Kompella and Martini respectively) > What are the compatible methods to follow in this case? Point to point (pseudowire, Martini tunnel) is very much interoperable

[j-nsp] MPLS L2VPN Cisco and Juniper

Hi all Am trying to configure MPLS L2VPN between Cisco and Juniper I know in Cisco VPLS and xconnect In juniper l2vpn and l2circuit (Kompella and Martini respectively) What are the compatible methods to follow in this case? BR, Mohammad ___ juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX40?

> On 18 Apr 2016, at 00:34, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > >> On Apr 16, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> >> >> MX5 through MX80 are the same physical hardware, with all the same >> physical ports built-in. The lower models have some ports