On 11/6/12 3:43 AM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > * Christopher E. Brown <chris.br...@acsalaska.net> [2012-11-06 10:41]: >> >> And I have tested and seen exactly the opposite with 10.4R10 in both >> MX80 and all trio MX960. >> >> >> Create a policer and a vpls filter that matches unknown ucast, bcast and >> mcast. >> >> Apply to VPLS forwarding table in 2 instances >> >> ... >> >> Two filter instances, but one shared policer. > > Just to be sure, could you try to use the "interface-specific" keyword > for your filter?
Yes, first thing will not commit. Spent most of a day carefully going through every available option, testing, re-testing doc searching, etc... > I wonder if someone can clear this up. I think shared filters are more > intuitive and in line with how "normal" interface filters work. But > then I would need that "instance-specific" knob. > > At the moment I only see the "solution" to have individual flood > filters for every VPLS instance which makes large-scale deployment > complicated (I wanted to apply a standard filter in an apply-group). > > Regards > > Sebastian Was totally blown away, and spent several hours chewing on our SE about it. In my mind, the default is fine. It is consistent with normal behavior and there are times when a shared policer would be desired. The lack of a instance specific option though, that is stupid beyond belief, shocking surprise. I layed into SE team on this one just are hard as I did about tri-color policers. Juniper went through all the trouble to create a nice tri-color system but left out the most useful feature already in standard policers... logical-bandwidth -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher E. Brown <chris.br...@acsalaska.net> desk (907) 550-8393 cell (907) 632-8492 IP Engineer - ACS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp