On Thursday 04 February 2010 04:46:52 pm Pekka Savola wrote: > FWIW, OP may have meant 4 full tables in RIB+FIB, 4 in > RIB and 1 in FIB, or something else. I thought the > second. A more recent RE could do the trick, but it's a > different issue if that's the most sensible approach in > the grand scheme of things..
Concerns about the RE-850 abound. With the way JUNOS + the Internet routing table are growing, I'm worried. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
