Re: [j-nsp] ccc interface in logical-systems

Thanks all, It was a inherited configuration from group which was making the mess. Fixed. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Eduardo Schoedler wrote: > 2016-05-25 6:15 GMT-03:00 Mark Tinka : > > > > > > On 25/May/16 11:10, Anand Anand wrote: > > > >>

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 23:39, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > I think Juniper made the right call -- if you have a reason to "need" the > bleeding edge RE, you should also be fine with running the bleeding edge > Junos. Which, I think, is fair. If you are willing to support a popular but older generation,

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 25/May/16 23:33, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > >> There is a different network card driver, so it would require a different >> kernel. > > Which needs time, porting and testing... > > Mark. Oh I know, I was just

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 23:33, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > There is a different network card driver, so it would require a different > kernel. Which needs time, porting and testing... Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 25/May/16 21:50, raf wrote: > >> >> >> This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or >> even old one could not use a newer RE. After all it was just a newer >> CPU and more RAM. >> It

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 21:50, raf wrote: > > > This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or > even old one could not use a newer RE. After all it was just a newer > CPU and more RAM. > It should work a least with one core and 4G enabled. Time involved in porting and testing. >

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 20:57, Saku Ytti wrote: > I don't find much value in official recommendations. Generally > strategy with all vendors is: > > 1) get newest supported (if long term release exist then that) > software available > 2) if defects, upgrade minor version > 3) if hw requires or feature

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 19:28, Daniel Verlouw wrote: > definitely good and valid points, however are you willing to deploy > (what I consider) bleeding-edge code in your network to support the > latest and greatest HW? I'm most certainly not, have plenty of issues > today with so-called 'stable'

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:52, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > I would bet money on this being the case. I would assume that a certain > company that has a large search engine is of the general opinion "We like the > hardware, but we do not want to use your software in any way. We can write > our own

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:47, Colton Conor wrote: > Besides swapping the inter processor out for a new one, and adding more and > faster ram, is there really any other big differences? No one ever complained about faster processors and more RAM. But there is a lot more to consider before deploying that

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:44, Michael Still wrote: > Couple reasons. First is that this is pretty shiny new product and it's a > good idea to expect bugs to be found in it. Second is that it requires you > to run much newer / less well baked code than a lot of people are > comfortable with in their

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25/May/16 18:31, Colton Conor wrote: > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other benefits? > Juniper is offering the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Le 25/05/2016 à 18:52, Phil Rosenthal a écrit : This new RE requires Junos 15.1R4 minimum. If you have a reason to use 14.x or 13.x, then this RE will not work for you. This is really strange. I don't see technical reason why 14, 13 or even old one could not use a newer RE. After all

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> Am 25.05.2016 um 21:00 schrieb Phil Rosenthal : > > >> On May 25, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: >> >> I would personally be very interested in jumping to 16.1 as soon as >> practice, as BGP is supposedly in its own thread. Maybe RPD in its own >> core.

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 22:00, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > RPD is already essentially in it's own core in 15.1, since the kernel is > finally SMP. I don't see how there would be any benefit to forcing > affinity, if that's what you are implying? Yeah, I'd like affinity for it, so no

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > I would personally be very interested in jumping to 16.1 as soon as > practice, as BGP is supposedly in its own thread. Maybe RPD in its own > core. So that might bring lot of stability. RPD is already essentially in it's own

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 20:59, Colton Conor wrote: > So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC > Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now > it's Junos 14.1R7 I don't find much value in official recommendations. Generally

Re: [j-nsp] ccc interface in logical-systems

2016-05-25 6:15 GMT-03:00 Mark Tinka : > > > On 25/May/16 11:10, Anand Anand wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Im trying to test l2vpn in logical system. when configuring vlan-ccc for >> the interface within the logical system, i get an error. if i do the same >> in the global

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC > Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now > it's Junos 14.1R7 Based on how things have gone in the past, the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

So how long before Junos 15.1R4 or higher will be the offical JTAC Recommended Junos Software Version for MX Series with NG MPCs? Right now it's Junos 14.1R7 On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Verlouw wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Saku Ytti

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 20:28, Daniel Verlouw wrote: > definitely good and valid points, however are you willing to deploy > (what I consider) bleeding-edge code in your network to support the > latest and greatest HW? I'm most certainly not, have plenty of issues > today with

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Hi, On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > Longer time before it's end of support, better resell value on top of > normal better scale and convergence. definitely good and valid points, however are you willing to deploy (what I consider) bleeding-edge code in your

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 19:47, Colton Conor wrote: > Besides swapping the inter processor out for a new one, and adding more and > faster ram, is there really any other big differences? Longer time before it's end of support, better resell value on top of normal better scale

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

> On May 25, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Besides swapping the inter processor out for a new one, and adding more and faster ram, is there really any other big differences? On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Michael Still wrote: > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor > wrote:

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 19:31, Colton Conor wrote: > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other benefits? >

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party > software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with > more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Assuming we are not going to be using these new RE's to load any 3rd party software on them, the RE-S-X6-64G-BB will just be a quicker processor with more ram compared to an older RE right? Are there any other benefits? Juniper is offering the RE-S-X6-64G-BB for the same price as the

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

On 25 May 2016 at 17:10, raf wrote: Hey, > On this point I disagree. Virtualization add a layer and a little overhead, > but nowadays it's a mature and stable technologies. > And splitting things and decoupling them are always a good things for me. I > talk about junos which

Re: [j-nsp] RE-S-X6-64G-BB

Le 23/05/2016 à 18:57, Saku Ytti a écrit : I think this is driven by not having options mostly, freescale isn't there for today's control-plane scale Yes absolutely; but as a side effect we should have a much reactive control plane while junos was primarily coded on x86; and porting on

Re: [j-nsp] ccc interface in logical-systems

On 25/May/16 11:10, Anand Anand wrote: > Hi, > > Im trying to test l2vpn in logical system. when configuring vlan-ccc for > the interface within the logical system, i get an error. if i do the same > in the global configuration, it commits fine. > > missing anything? > > lab# show

[j-nsp] ccc interface in logical-systems

Hi, Im trying to test l2vpn in logical system. when configuring vlan-ccc for the interface within the logical system, i get an error. if i do the same in the global configuration, it commits fine. missing anything? lab# show logical-systems pe1 interfaces ge-0/0/3 unit 0 { encapsulation