On 2019-03-18 23:24 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Cheaper is subjective. To a small and dynamic shop CAPEX may represent
> majority of cost. To an incumbent CAPEX may be entirely irrelevant,
> money is cheap, but approving hardware to network may be massive
> multiyear project. This is why platforms
On 2019-03-18 21:05 UTC, Tim Rayner wrote:
> As I understand it, when a 400G port is enabled, 3 of the 100G ports
> are made un-available (not sure whether there is an option for sub-rate
> on the 400G port keeping more of the 100G ports available), hence there
> will be a limit of 1.5 Tbps per
I like them. 100G FS DAC between a pair works well in 17, not so much in 18
code (although I didn't try disabling auto negotiation, which is a quirk
with the 4300/5100 sometimes). I gave up early on about not hard setting
the interfaces. Never worked for me until I did that. BGP did as
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:48 PM Thomas Bellman wrote:
> Gah, I hate that wording. To me it sounds like "sunk cost fallacy"
> and "throwing good money after bad"... (I'm not necessarily saying
> that applies to these cards. It's just that I have heard the words
> "protect your investment" too
> It seems these are oversubscribed to the backplane. 8×100G + 2×400G
> is 1.6 Tbit/s, and 12×100G + 3×400G is 2.4 Tbit/s, but all three of
> MX240, MX480 and MX960 are listed as having 1.5 Tbit/s max per slot.
> (And is that 1.5 Tbit/s in *and* out, or is that just 750 Gbit/s per
> direction?)
How did you like the MX204 ? How much testing did you do?
I have one now, just received it on Friday, and I have it in the lab.
I'm currently just testing a few things...
ospf
mpls
ldp
vrf
bridge-domain
multiple different vlan tags on same physical interface with different tags
on different
Hi,
Am 18.03.2019 um 19:57 schrieb Gert Doering:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:50:26PM +, Giuliano C. Medalha wrote:
EVPN-VXLAN in general is supported using PFL license (QFX) ... that is not too
much expensive
AFL license will support MPLS (L2circuit) and EVPN MPLS features in some
On 2019-03-14 13:40 -0400, Andrey Kostin wrote:
> Accidentally found that MX series datasheet now mentions MPC-10E with
> 400G ports
> https://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000597-en.pdf
[...]
> the MPC-10E protects existing investments
Gah, I hate that wording. To me it
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:50:26PM +, Giuliano C. Medalha wrote:
> EVPN-VXLAN in general is supported using PFL license (QFX) ... that is not
> too much expensive
>
> AFL license will support MPLS (L2circuit) and EVPN MPLS features in some
> platforms ... but is costs more.
>
>
Hello
EVPN-VXLAN in general is supported using PFL license (QFX) ... that is not too
much expensive
AFL license will support MPLS (L2circuit) and EVPN MPLS features in some
platforms ... but is costs more.
https://forums.juniper.net/t5/Enterprise-Cloud-and/Welcome-QFX5120-48Y/ba-p/329900
Thank you for that link, it's quite useful.
Would someone be able to confirm if EVPN with VXLAN data plane encapsulation
would require or not the Advanced Feature Licenses, EX4600-AFL license?
Thanks,
Alex
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, March 15, 2019 11:14 PM, Anderson, Charles R
11 matches
Mail list logo
