Thanks. Can you provide little more info on this, or at least doc reference. I've never heard of this. Thanks, Marlon
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Simon Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing to add, if you don't have the tunnel-pic, you need to > configure some sort of VE interface, in addition to use > "no-tunnel-services" statement. > > -Simon > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Marlon Duksa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A-ha. Thanks. > > I needed an additional router in my setup, so I was using this older M20. > > Obviously this won't work. If I segment my M320 into two logical routers, > > then one of those two logical routers on M320 would replace the M20 and > I > > should be able to proceed with this VPLS setup, correct? > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:53 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > Yes, no tp hardware in the chassis, this is why I'm using no-tunnel > >> > -services cmd. > >> > > >> > Is there any workaround? Or at least the documentation mentioning that > >> VPLS > >> > PE is not supported on certain FPCs... > >> > >> Documented for instance at > >> > >> > >> > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos91/swconfig-vpns/configuring-vpls-without-a-tunnel-services-pic.html#id-11543506 > >> > >> "When you configure VPLS without a Tunnel Services PIC by including > >> the no-tunnel-services statement, the following limitations apply: > >> An Enhanced FPC is required." > >> > >> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp