Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 8 June 2016 at 17:58, Aaron wrote: > Would anyone consider putting a ACX5048 in place of a MX104/ASR9k ? Be sure you're happy with FIB size, with ACL size, ACL features (ipv4+ipv6, at the same time), control-plane protection etc. ACX across the board is pretty good, if you can live with the co

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

I realize these are 2 totally different style boxes, but I'll ask anyway... An ACX5048 with (72) 10 gig ports (or... (48) 10 gig ports with (6) 40 gig ports) at ~$15K ... Would anyone consider putting a ACX5048 in place of a MX104/ASR9k ? - Aaron ___

Re: [j-nsp] Commit script portability between ELS and non-ELS platforms

On 07/06/16 21:51, Rob Foehl wrote: Does anyone have any clever methods for probing Enhanced Layer 2 Software support from a commit script on QFX/EX in order to generate changes appropriate to the platform? Specifically looking for something beyond checking hardware and version numbers, or for p

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 8 June 2016 at 00:00, Ross Halliday wrote: Hey, > All kinds of problems happen, yes the only "real" safeguard is to put every > customer on their own PE. You might remember a previous conversation we had > regarding the DDoS Protection mechanism. This thing is a major thorn in my > side. T