On 13 October 2011 14:41, Chris Morrow <morr...@ops-netman.net> wrote: >> >> I can't help but wonder if perhaps Juniper just expects us to >> buy....I dunno....routers....to do routing. I'm not trying to justify > > this is a flavor of the 'its only a TOR switch' discussion, but...
Should it not be ? > <http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000261-en.pdf> > talks about mpls capabilities, ...roadmapped, though I haven't a clue how old that PDF is..perhaps it supports MPLS now. NSR was also listed as roadmapped, which I would consider a requirement of a dual-RE device which will be performing a significant amount of routing. > as well as bgp, ipv6, isis.... ...all 3 of which require Advanced Feature Licenses (just to 'enable' a feature which is absolutely required). Same PDF indicates "* Shared route table—actual capacity depends on prefix distribution" when referring to IPv4 unicast routes. I'm not doubting that it was a bad implementation as Paul described, but they do make mention of it. > so, it > kind of fits the bill for a larger network device with routing > capabilities, eh? Clearly YMMV....let's ask the OP. Or, ask your Juniper RE at the Goog if they would recommend it for such a purpose. I haven't tried to push full tables to enough switches to know how many of them are good at it, so please forgive both my ignorance and smugness (yeah, that's a word). David _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp