Ahh good thinking - we already do that today for some Metaswitch stuff why didn't I think of that before? ;)
On 2013-07-25 7:50 PM, "Caillin Bathern" <caill...@commtelns.com> wrote: >Alternatively use routed VPLS on the core box if it is also an MX and a >standard VPLS instance on the edge: >http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.2/topics/task/configuratio >n/vpls-irb-solutions.html > >Or if you are game then in the next release you should get "psX" >interfaces on the MX for direct PWHT although it will still be bound to >an lt- interface underneath. Documentation already exists for this for >13.1. > >Caillin > >-----Original Message----- >From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf >Of Paul Stewart >Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 8:11 AM >To: m...@kenweb.org; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN Termination > >> >> >> >>lt- interfaces are definitely a way to do it. In my case I put an lt- >>interface in a VPLS instance that was paired to another lt- with >>"family inet .." in a virtual router instance. I had a routed VPLS for > >>names sake. In my situation though the lt- interface doesn't move much > >>traffic. I'm unsure of what might happen if you tried to move real >>traffic through it. > >I'll find out what 400 Mb/s or so of traffic looks like on Monday haha >;) > >Paul > > >_______________________________________________ >juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >-- >Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and >content filtering.http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp