Hi Mark, Re the control plane L2VPN interop issues.
I believe this is meant to have been fixed in 15.3(2)S. Currently about to start testing it in the lab and will report back. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3600x_3800x/software/relea se/15.3_2_S/configuration/guide/swmpls.html#wp1285989 Nick -- Nick Ryce Fluency Communications Ltd. e. n...@fluency.net.uk w. http://fluency.net.uk/ t. 0845 874 7000 On 14/04/2013 17:47, "Mark Tinka" <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: >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. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp