On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 22:49, wrote:
> JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services.
> Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the
> 204. I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what
> they have told
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 00:28, Delong.com wrote:
> The MX-204 appears to be an entirely fixed configuration chassis and looks
> from the literature like it is based on pre-trio chipset technology.
> Interesting that there are 100Gbe interfaces implemented with this seemingly
> older
On 10/17/23 03:20, Ryan Kozak wrote:
"The MX204 router supports two inline tunnels - one per PIC. To
configure the tunnel interfaces, include the tunnel-services statement
and an optional bandwidth of 1 Gbps through 200 Gbps at the \[edit
chassis fpc fpc-slot pic number\] hierarchy
On 10/16/23 21:49, Jeff Behrns via NANOG wrote:
Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204.
This is true of other MX platforms as well, unless I misunderstand.
Mark.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
According to:
> I wonder if he knew it would have become what it is today.
one of my favorite postel quotes
It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a
slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in
the early days, we figured out this consistent path through
I wasn’t even born yet when he died, but as humans we are lucky to have had
someone like him, along with a great many other folks along side him. One of my
professors at Michigan (his name eludes me for some reason) always had a great
many stories about him and other folks in that time period,
Jon was very kind to me when I was a wet-behind-the-ears network engineer. He
once showed me around ISI and gave me an entire shelf of down-version Cisco
manuals. I had a Cisco 2500 peering with ISI in a maintenance closet in the ISI
parking structure. A single T1 let me run a few dozen
is it candle time?
Le 16 octobre 2023 21:13:50 UTC, Randy Bush a écrit :
>25 years ago, jon postel died. we stand on the shoulders of jon and
>others, a number of whom died in october. not a cheering month for
>old timers.
>
>randy
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse
Looks like the MX204 Is a bit of an odd duck in the MX series. It probably
shares some hardware characteristics under the hood (even the MX80 (mostly,
there was a variant that had pre-installed interfaces) had MIC slots).
The MX-204 appears to be an entirely fixed configuration chassis and
25 years ago, jon postel died. we stand on the shoulders of jon and
others, a number of whom died in october. not a cheering month for
old timers.
randy
Junos doesn't maintain an intermediate BGP table / RIB as you would see on
other Cisco-like platforms. Therefore you need to build comm-string actions
into your neighborship policies.
JTAC says we must disable a physical port to allocate BW for tunnel-services.
Also leaving tunnel-services bandwidth unspecified is not possible on the 204.
I haven't independently tested / validated in lab yet, but this is what they
have told me. I advised JTAC to update the MX204
On 10/15/23 8:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
I think we often forget just how much of a massive inversion the
communications industry has undergone; back in the 80s, when
I started working in networking, everything was DS0 voice channels,
and data was just a strange side business that nobody
The Federal Communications Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau (PSHSB), together with the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)’s Emergency Communications Division,
will host a public roundtable on the cybersecurity of the nation’s public
alert and
The issue in Houston is Dallas.
I reached out to 30-40 networks and 90% of them all said they just back haul to
Dallas and have no interest in peering in Houston. It’s a real hard town to
get any traction in. If you’re local and have some insight, I’d be super happy
to talk to you.
Aaron
16 matches
Mail list logo
