Funny, I think we did the same thing.
It’s not worth waiting ?? - 48 months for Enhancement Requests to manifest in
software.
Even when they do, you have to wait for the bugs to be discovered and fixed,
too.
Are you planning to discard the dsc interface (ha!), as we have done?
Br,
No problem!
@Niall : I can't remember if there was something under the hood that made
the discard *interface* more preferable than just a discard *route*. In our
implementation we have a qualified next-hop to send flagged traffic to a
local collector box first, and only discard if that's not
I’m pretty sure we drilled Juniper about the IPv6 discard interface thing a
few months ago and got a feature request in for that. One of our guys
wasted about 2 weeks on that.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:07 Niall Donaghy wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Yes we (large ISP) tried using dsc interfaces (MX
On Oct 12, 2018, at 9:07 AM, Niall Donaghy wrote:
>
> Yes we (large ISP) tried using dsc interfaces (MX series) to count RTBH
> traffic and found, 1) they don't count, and 2) IPv6 is unsupported for dsc.
That's what I needed to know! Back to standard discard routes it is...
Thanks to you and
Hi Jason,
Yes we (large ISP) tried using dsc interfaces (MX series) to count RTBH
traffic and found, 1) they don't count, and 2) IPv6 is unsupported for dsc.
As with many Junos features, there is not parity between IPv4 and IPv6.
That alone bugged us, but especially as the counters did not work,
5 matches
Mail list logo
