[j-nsp] vMX availability

Does anyone know if vMX is out in the wild yet? I was under the impression that lab/trial versions would be available through re-sellers in early March, but I haven't had any luck getting my hands on anything. Josh ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] vMX availability

needs. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Josh Baird joshba...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know if vMX is out in the wild yet? I was under the impression that lab/trial versions would be available through re-sellers in early March, but I haven't had any luck getting my hands on anything

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

I hope the 128k RIB/FIB limitation is not correct. But who knows.. vMX is essentially vaporware to me at this point. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Blundell david.blund...@100percentit.com wrote: Has anyone testing the vMX software found out its RIB/FIB/L3VPN limitations? The

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Raphael Mazelier r...@futomaki.net wrote: Le 29/07/15 19:15, Josh Baird a écrit : I hope the 128k RIB/FIB limitation is not correct. But who knows.. vMX is essentially vaporware to me at this point. Nope this isn't vaporware. I've got plenty of old version and the general

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX limitations

I was hoping to use them for edge routing (full IPv4 tables) at POPs with total bandwidth 1gbps. But, I would feel much more comfortable with VMWare. I hope support for VMWare is official soon. I'm also waiting on official (non-list) pricing for the various packages to see if it even makes

[j-nsp] Routed VLAN Interfaces on MX

Hi, I apologize for the basic question as I'm a new Junos user. I'm attempting to convert the following basic config from a Cisco NPE-G1: interface GigabitEthernet0/3 desc 'Physical link to EX' interface GigabitEthernet0/3.41 encapsulation dot1q ip address 1.1.1.2/30 On the MX, I am

Re: [j-nsp] Routed VLAN Interfaces on MX

int ae0 unit 41 vlan-id family inet > > > > instead of doing encap vlan-bridge on the unit 41 and all the other > > related bridge-domain stuff > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, >

[j-nsp] JCare Differences

Hi, Mostly new to the Juniper world, and I'm a bit confused about JCare offerings. I'm pricing a new MX kit that is being quoted with SVC-COR (JCare Core). With this offering, will Juniper not replace my defective hardware? Unless I'm mis-understanding this document [1], it would seem that CORE

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

No 10G interfaces are unlocked on the base MX104-MX5 bundle. This requires additional licensing. You don't need additional licensing for BGP. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Satish Patel wrote: > I check price on Internet it cost around $44k > > Now I need to check how

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 base model

You should really talk to your Juniper partner or sales rep. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Satish Patel <satish@gmail.com> wrote: > How much it cost to activate 10G ports on MX104? > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >

[j-nsp] 15.1 on MX104

Hi, I have a MX104 running 13.3R6.5 that is hitting PR1080566. I'm looking to either upgrade to 14.2R6 or 15.1R6. I know that a new FreeBSD kernel is introduced in 15.1, but based on the PPC architecture of the RE-MX-104, I don't believe I will be able to take advantage of the new kernel so I

Re: [j-nsp] juniper router reccomendations

Isn't there a x86 based RE for the MX104 in the works? If so, this should improve performance/convergence times by quite a bit I would think. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > Mike, > > Here is the view of my MX80. This router has a couple

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper vMX

Yes, vMX licenses are based on both application packages and throughput/bandwidth capacity [1]. [1] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/vmx14.1/topics/concept/vmx-licensing.html On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:04 AM, James Bensley wrote: > > From: Josh Reynolds

[j-nsp] MX104 recommended Junos version?

This page [1] shows that the recommended version is 15.1R6, but this page [1] says 14.1R7 for the MX104. I know the MX104's PPC RE cannot use the SMP kernel included in 15.1, but I understand an older kernel will be installed for these PPC devices. I'm currently running 14.2R6.5 but I am having

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 recommended Junos version?

> Network Engineer > Information Technology > Michigan Technological University > (906) 487-3696 <%28906%29%20487-3696> > https://www.mtu.edu/ > https://www.mtu.edu/it > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This page

[j-nsp] Understanding limitations of various MX104 bundles

Hi all, Given the MX104-MX5-AC bundle which comes with 1 20x 1GE MIC pre-installed (and none of the onboard 10Gbps interfaces enabled), is this box actually limited to 20Gbps overall throughput? Can I install another MIC (say the MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP) in an additional slot to gain 2 10Gbps interfaces

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding limitations of various MX104 bundles

nating peering/transit), having dual > RE isn’t particularly important as we achieve our redundancy using separate > routers. YMMV. > > > > Edward Dore > > Freethought Internet > > > > *From: *Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, 5 January 2018 a

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding limitations of various MX104 bundles

gt; > I’m not sure if the MX204 supports Junos Fusion yet, which would allow you > to use an EX4300 as a satellite device for terminating low speed interfaces > in a much more elegant manner. > > > > Edward Dore > > Freethought Internet > > > > *From: *

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding limitations of various MX104 bundles

MX5, MX10, M40, MX80, and MX104 > S-JFLOW-CH-MX5-104 > > With best regards > alexander > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag > von Edward Dore > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Januar 2018 10:21 > An: Josh

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding limitations of various MX104 bundles

Dore > > Freethought Internet > > > > *From: *Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, 5 January 2018 at 14:08 > *To: *"alexander.marh...@gmx.at" <alexander.marh...@gmx.at> > *Cc: *Edward Dore <edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk>,

Re: [j-nsp] Going Juniper

I have found the licensing costs on the MX104 to be pretty ridiculous. I can buy a brand new MX204 with plenty of 10Gbps interfaces for cheaper than it would be up upgrade the "base" MX104 (MX104-MX5 bundle) to enable the four of the built-in 10Gbps interfaces and additional chassis throughput.

Re: [j-nsp] JunOS on EX4550?

news, I just report it > > > On 10/16/19, 1:50 PM, "Josh Baird" wrote: > > Is it possible (and recommended) to run anything newer than 15.1 on > EX4550 > (which is what the JTAC-recommended version currently is). > > > >

[j-nsp] JunOS on EX4550?

Is it possible (and recommended) to run anything newer than 15.1 on EX4550 (which is what the JTAC-recommended version currently is). ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] Copper interface on EX4200 VC becomes a VC-Port?

Hi all, I have an EX4200 VC stack where a copper interface (0/8 below) has suddenly became a VC port: > show virtual-chassis vc-port fpc0: -- Interface Type Trunk Status SpeedNeighbor or