On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote: > "Darren O'Connor" <darre...@outlook.com> writes: > >> Indeed, this is the worst thing this router can do. I have redundant >> routers sitting there doing absolutely nothing as this router's >> control-plane says everything is fine. > > I'm looking at using MX80 as an Internet transit router too... > > Do you know if it is possible to prioritize which routes get installed > first into the FIB? In that case, a default route could be used to catch > the wrongly-blackholed traffic. It is not particularly elegant or in > keeping with being otherwise default-free, of course.
so, I've observed a lot of other interesting bugs as it relates to JunOS when running on a lower processor system. These are the types of bugs they didn't see in the lab until they installed the same "slower" RE that we were using. Just some odd timing regression. I have reason to believe some of this will get better in the long-term, but until then you will need to spend some time convincing JTAC and the developers to look into the suboptimal performance of the system under load. (We spent a long time doing this in the past and they eventually found some code that had a poorly constructed set of arguments to an if statement. This resulted in it always being true (or was it false?). As far as the fallback 'default' route, if you are purchasing transit from someone, you could consider a last-resort default pointed at them. You can exclude routes like 10/8 etc by routing these to discard + install on your devices. - Jared _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
