On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:13:25PM +, Giovanni Bellac wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for
> our
> newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
>
> 1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
> 2) We will run BGP default routes (NO full table) and
Hi Giovanni,
Here I have 3 virtual-chassis 2xEX4200. Two of them used as access L2
switches, and the last one as L3 border CE (it´s running 4
rouing-instances against 4 VRF with OSPF, 2 LAGs, variuos RVIs and
Filter-Based-Forwardig to accomplish a specific cistomer requirement).
Here there i
I'm running a 2x EX4200 VC on 10.0R4.7. I haven't found any issues. Each rack
switch connects up on LAG bundles. No BGP, this V-chassis acts as a small data
center build.
I have other EX4200's on 10.0S1.1 doing OSPF and BGP and they're performing
well. So far, I haven't seen the need to upgrade
10.0S12 has been great for us... extended service release. We have no BGP
on them though...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Giovanni Bellac
Sent: February-19-11 11:13 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.net
Hello all
I have now spend a lot of time to find out the optimal version of JunOS for our
newly ordered 2x EX4200s.
1) We will run a 2x EX4200 Virtual Chassis.
2) We will run BGP default routes (NO full table) and announce our /21.
3) We will connect our rack-switches to the Virtual Chassis.
So
5 matches
Mail list logo
