Re: [j-nsp] ACX5448 & ACX710

We have a very small deployment of ASR920 running 16.12. Work well for us, and we do some pretty kinky/exotic stuff: small scale BNG, Internet in VRF, selective FIB, port-based DHCPv4/v6/PD, IP unnumbered, IPoDWDM... If you can stomach the BU wars, UADP is a nice ASIC - I think the Cat9k has

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper PTX1000

NCS-5501 non-SE version is 48x 10G + 6x 100G NCS-5502 is 48x 100G On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:21 PM Aaron wrote: > I was thinking about the ptx1000 as a supercore fast mpls swapping p-box. > I understand it can have (24) 100 gig ! > > I've seen the PTX1000 referred to as a

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote: What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure

Re: [j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Of Tim Durack Sent: 20 February 2015 14:00 IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic. And most importantly it's not actually needed it's just a whim of network operators. adam

[j-nsp] draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

I notice draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 was posted February 11, 2015. What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last piece for me.) -- Tim:

Re: [j-nsp] VLAN's on EX4300 with 13.2X50-D15.3

Can one run full IGP+MP-BGP VPLS/L2VPN/L3VPN on the ex4300? On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Ben Dale bd...@comlinx.com.au wrote: On 20 Feb 2014, at 6:00 pm, Per Granath per.gran...@gcc.com.cy wrote: For the mixed VC, the options are EX42+EX4550 or EX43+QFX. For VC, the EX42 uses

Re: [j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own VRF?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote: Keeping it really stupid is what we're after :-). Mark. We run Internet in a VRF, but I have to agree with Mark's comments. Unfortunately, there are lots of Engineers/Vendors/Security Experts/Auditors who think that

Re: [j-nsp] Multihoming servers to two Virtual Chassises

Linux ethernet bonding/teaming does not need to be switch assisted. If you configure one of the non-802.3ad modes (TLB etc) and put the two NICs on the same broadcast domain, everything will work. We use TLB mode, which gives 2x outbound, 1x inbound, due to the way arp resolution works. Tim: On

Re: [j-nsp] ethernet aggregation between M5 and HP Procurve 4000M

On Jan 31, 2008 9:59 AM, Nicolaj Kamensek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Antonio Querubin schrieb: Hi, Anybody know if Junipers are able to do ethernet aggregation with an HP Procurve 4000M switch? The Procurve 4000M config menu provides 3 different aggregation types: Trunk, FEC, and

Re: [j-nsp] SFP Compatibility

I have to wonder if vendors are subsidizing line cards with GBIC/SFP sales. Once one vendor does it, everybody else has to follow to stay competitive. Either that or it such a huge cash-cow they wont let it go. I guess the compatible design of GBIC/SFPs benefits the vendor not the end-user, as

Re: [j-nsp] SFP Compatibility

On Jan 10, 2008 5:38 PM, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 05:03:40PM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote: Yeah, I'm just wondering when this will end. I've spoken with a few different vendors about their plans for optics and they all say that we don't lock you