On 12/17/10 15:09, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Chris Morrow wrote: >> >>> It seems to me they are not taking this matter very seriously. Time >>> flies and nothing changes. > > FWIW I've already done an epic amount of bitching about this issue, and > they ARE aware and working on improving it. Its always nice to have more > voices though, so they don't think it's just that ras guy whining about > something nobody cares about. :)
yea, same here with the PLM and such :( so far... look we still can't rate-limit to the box, w00t! :( fail. >> The EX, for some reason, is never required to meet the same >> functionality testing and results as the other Juniper routing platforms >> are... It's quite sad that Juniper put this product out ignoring ~10 >> years of industry best practices/standards/experience/knowledge. > > Insert standard disclaimer about "it's an enterprise class box, where > enterprise is codeword for doesn't actually have to work right because > enterprise people are stupid and don't know any better, and you can > always pay a lot more money and buy an MX if thats a problem" here. :) yea, so... from: <http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000215-en.pdf> "AFL includes licenses for IS-IS, BGP, MPLS and IPv6 routing" && "Extend Virtual Private LANs with MPLS" && You put ISIS and MPLS in a 'this is a Top-of-Rack switch' ... and the messaging gets a tad 'confusing'. Is this a TOR or is this a small MPLS capable device to deploy in the field termination of FTTH-type deployments? -Chris _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
