Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
We still use EX4200 rack ears and center mount them. Holes line up, works fine. I believe it's "EX-RMK". It's more problematic to flush mount it as one always needs some support on the rear- usually a small shelf on the back side, like the small shelf used to mount an MX480. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
Just put the rack brackets back towards the middle of the sides so the switch is hangs further forward. The weight is more balanced and it works fine. On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:39:43PM -0400, Colton Conor wrote: > We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post racks. > To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these > switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to > hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html -- Tim On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Colton Conor wrote: > We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post racks. > To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these > switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to > hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post racks. To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Longest Match for LDP (RFC5283)
On 31 July 2018 at 15:29, wrote: > One follow up question, > What about the case, where the minimum set of /32 loopback routes and > associated labels is simply beyond the capabilities of an access node. > Is there a possibility for such access node to rely on default route + label > -where originator of such a labelled default-route is the local ABR(s) in > "opt-B" role doing full IP lookup and then repackaging packets towards the > actual NH please? Hi Adam, In the Seamless MPLS design the access nodes have a single default route or single summary prefix for your loopback range (say 192.0.2.0/24) and use LDP Downstream on Demand and request the transport labels from the aggregation nodes only for the remote PEs the access node actually needs (i.e. where you have configured a pseudowire/L2 VPN towards, iBGP neghbour address for L3 VPN etc.). So the access node should *only* have exactly the labels it needs with a single route (when using RFC5283). Cheers, James. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
