[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My personal preferences are definitely the M/T series, but I also > work with ERX. My current ERX frustration is the incredibly stupid/ > insane/non-intuitive lack of a plain interface description field. > > Yes, I can have "ip description". For *some* types of interfaces. I > can have "ethernet description" - but seemingly only for the main > (physical) Ethernet interfaces. I can have "atm description", but > again, only for main ATM interfaces. I can *not*, however, have a > plain "description". This is converted to "ip description", with a > warning that "description" is deprecated. > > So why oh why cannot ERX have plain "description" like M/T and lots > of other router/switch vendors? The current situation leads to non- > intuitive and confusing behavior like the following: > > - An ATM "pure PPPoE" interface (no IP) like the following: > > interface atm 4/1.118034 > atm pvc 118034 118 34 aal5snap 0 0 0 > encapsulation pppoe > pppoe auto-configure > pppoe profile any pppoe > > needs "atm atm1483 description" to have a meaningful description > field, while an Ethernet "pure PPPoE" interface (again no IP) like > the following: > > interface gigabitEthernet 5/0.8420023 > svlan id 842 23 > pppoe > pppoe auto-configure > pppoe profile any pppoe > > needs an "ip description" (despite having no IP configured). > > - Configuring a main GigE interface with "description" earlier today, > it was converted to "ip description". So far so good. But when I then > try to add "encapsulation vlan", I get "Add VLAN major interface failed > (interface already bound to ethernet interface)" - and I have to do a > "no interface" on the main interface to remove the "binding" that I > never asked for. This is even documented in a Juniper KB article, > > http://kb.juniper.net/CUSTOMERSERVICE/index?page=kbdetail&record_id=02520308dcd5d010908cb3e2e004e8b > > Needless to say, I find all of this cumbersome, non-intuitive, POLA- > breaking, irritating, and lots of other not so nice words that could be > used. > > I want plain "description", which is not tied to any specific interface > technology/protocol, and which doesn't lead to "magic" bindings when it > is configured. Is this really so hard? > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > >
I can't agree more. It's very frustrating and makes it difficult to have a "standard" interface setup. -- Stephen A. Amato Sr. Network Planning Engineer Frontier Communications 585-214-1770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp