Thanks much for the replies, I better understand your dilemma. Assume your P/PE support RFC 6790, isn't RFC 6790 essentially a superset of RFC 6391? If you configure RFC 6790 network wide for all LDP FECs [again, we're homogenous], you wouldn't need FAT-PW?
-Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:36 AM > To: Michael Hare <michael.h...@wisc.edu>; Adam Vitkovsky > <adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk>; Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Limit on interfaces in bundle > > > > On 30/Oct/15 15:49, Michael Hare wrote: > > > I see that 14.1 [we're going there for E-VPN] also supports RFC 6391 and RFC > 6790, so I probably need to take a closer look. Anyone have experience with > either in JunOS yet? Mark, was it you that was on 14.2 for ingress CoS > purposes? > > > > Sorry if this has been discussed before on list > > > > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.1/topics/reference/con > figuration-statement/flow-label-transmit-static-edit-protocols-l2circuit.html > > > http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.1/topics/task/configurat > ion/mpls-entopy-label-configuring.html > > If you're going to Junos 14, I'd suggest 14.2R4.9. It has the new Policy > Map feature (ingress QoS support for 802.1p, IPP, DSCP and EXP), and > also fixes the LAG policing issue I described a few months back. > > We have the "Entropy Label for LSP's" feature enabled on our Juniper > routing devices. This mostly helps for upstream routers that can > understand this capability. However, be careful if you're running IOS XR > 5.3.0 on a Cisco router deploying RSVP with a Juniper box running this > feature. The signaling of this capability was broken by Cisco when they > got to 5.3.0, which breaks the RSVP session; but this was fixed in IOS > XR 5.3.1 and later. > > We have not yet enabled FAT-PW because our issue was downstream of the > MX boxes, not upstream into the core. We are more likely to move to > 100Gbps faster on the core-facing links compared to the downstream > links, so FAT-PW is not as critical there. However, we are looking into > it and have not yet made the decision whether to go 100Gbps or FAT-PW > for the particular data centre in question. > > FAT-PW would not help in the case where we went with per-packet sprays > as the downstreams switches are pure Layer 2 devices. > > Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp