Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:31:51AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote: > Would it be possible for you to share what code version you recommend for > Trio? > We've had a few MX80s in Prod with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC > cards to our MX960s and are struggling what version to go with. Con

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

Thats a very good point.  Vyatta is a solid product. From: Keegan Holley To: Richard A Steenbergen Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions 2011/6/2 Richard A Steenbergen > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

2011/6/2 Richard A Steenbergen > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:15PM -0400, jnprb...@gmail.com wrote: > > Although expensive, you can buy the JCS1200 with 64-bit Junos to run > > as a standalone RR. It's probably more economical if you could also > > benefit from VPNv4 RRs for MPLS VPN deployment

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Saturday, June 04, 2011 12:17:15 AM Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Agreed 100%, plus getting line-rate out of a mixed > DPC/MPC environment is a real bitch for a number of > reasons, so you'll be MUCH better off if you convert a > whole chassis at a time. Though I will say that 10.4R4 > didn't

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

Hello, Interesting comments. We've just finished a full suite of tests on an MX960 Lab box running combo DPC (4x10G & 40x1G) and MPC (20x1G and 2x10G MIC) on 10.4R4. We uncovered a few bugs during the testing. Most notable: -DPC R-Q ports report passed + dropped traffic under "show int" when us

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:04:09AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote: > > One thing to think seriously about is whether you're going to run your > MX's with a mixture of DPC's and MPC's. Depending on which features > you need to turn on, you may not be able to boot DPC cards if you have > MPC's installed

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:31:51 PM Serge Vautour wrote: > Would it be possible for you to share what code version > you recommend for Trio? We've had a few MX80s in Prod > with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC cards to > our MX960s and are struggling what version to go with. > Continue

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:31:51AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote: > Hello, > > Would it be possible for you to share what code version you recommend > for Trio? We've had a few MX80s in Prod with 10.2S6 for a while now. > We need to add MPC cards to our MX960s and are struggling what version > to

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

Hello, Would it be possible for you to share what code version you recommend for Trio? We've had a few MX80s in Prod with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC cards to our MX960s and are struggling what version to go with. Continue with 10.2 or move to 10.4? We're also planning on adding

Re: [j-nsp] Commit script: xsltMaxDepth

Phil and I have been exchanging emails. For the benefit of the list, this turned out to be a bug in Junos. Phil says it'll be fixed in a future release. I was on 10.4R4. The bug has to do with trying to issue an emit-change while the context is in get-chassis-inventory instead the config. As a

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding versioning of service and regular releases

* Richard A Steenbergen > Let me throw out some warnings about 11.1S2 for EX real quick. Thanks for the heads-up! This particular VC isn't really in production yet, so I went ahead and upgraded anyway. The upgrade went well (I came from 11.1R2 though), commit sync aftwards had no issues either.

[j-nsp] EX4200 and igmp and pim filtering

Hello, does anyone have an idea how to filter igmp reports and pim join messages per interface on EX4200? I tried igmp filtering http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos9.5/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-multicast/multicast-filtering-unwanted-igmp-reports-at-the-igmp-interf

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding versioning of service and regular releases

On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:58:00AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > On 2011-05-27, JUNOS 11.1S2 was released for the EX. So this release is > a couple of weeks newer than JUNOS 11.1R2.3. However, > > says 11.1R2.3 is the reco

Re: [j-nsp] Understanding versioning of service and regular releases

For releases prior to 10.4, the service release numbering space was independant of the R-release space. So you had to rely on the creation date. Beginning with 11.1, a service release is built "on top of" the preceeding S or R release. The set of fixes increases in the following sequence: 11.

[j-nsp] Understanding versioning of service and regular releases

On 2011-05-27, JUNOS 11.1S2 was released for the EX. So this release is a couple of weeks newer than JUNOS 11.1R2.3. However, says 11.1R2.3 is the recommended version for the EX 4500 in VC configurations. I'm a bit confus

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Friday, June 03, 2011 10:10:04 AM Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Price aside, anyone who wants a 12U RE needs to have > their head examined. :) How freaking hard can it be to > take an off-the-shelf 1U PC, slap a Juniper logo on the > front, mark it up 20x like everything else, and sell it > t

Re: [j-nsp] Rate limiting v4 and v6 together

On Friday, June 03, 2011 02:05:45 AM Chris Adams wrote: > Everybody suggested putting the policer directly on the > interface and setting "logical-interface-policer" in the > policer. Watch out if you're running Junos 9.3R2.8 (earlier code could also be affected, not certain). Implementing the