On Monday, February 25, 2013 04:56:39 PM Benny Amorsen wrote: > Dedicating an MX routing engine to the task seems a bit > silly, particularly since it would probably have to be > an MX240 due to the limitations of the MX80 RE.
A long-standing complaint of mine, for those who've seen most of my ranting about the same on this list. Mind you, I know several networks using M120's and MX240's/480's as route reflectors, simply because those are the "smallest" boxes with the "largest" memory for dedicated route reflection. I refuse to give in to that nonesense. > On the Cisco side the answer is ASR1k, but it seems less > clear-cut with Juniper. ASR1001 with 16GB DRAM. What more do you want, really? My only issue with Cisco route reflectors in a Juniper network (or vice versa) "was" the lack of compatibility in control plane l2vpn NLRI (where Juniper signals BGP NLRI for l2circuit-style (or l2vpn as it's known at Juniper) while Cisco is expecting VPLS-style, for a VPLS environment. I'm currently getting this confirmed as we're planning a major network upgrade, particularly for compatibility between both vendors re: MCAST-NLRI in NG-MVPN deployments (inet-mvpn as they call it at Juniper). Will report back if I find out anything interesting. 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