On 16/10/11 16:55, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> and if all you need is 10g LAN-PHY the MX
>> with the 16-port MIC does it nicely.
>
> There should be a newer version of this line card coming
> with WAN-PHY support.
10g WAN-PHY helps, but isn't actually enough.
Some long-haul applications require actua
On Sunday, October 16, 2011 02:33:57 AM Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
> All the hardware in
> the world doesn't help you if you don't have the right
> software, and C/J shockingly don't want to make a $10k
> box that obsoletes the need for a $1mil T-series.
I don't think it's terribly shocking :-
On Sunday, October 16, 2011 09:56:41 AM Julien Goodwin
wrote:
> I do object to the "still vaporware", "not due to ship
> until the end of the year" is closer. The main threat to
> the T-series is that 10ge slowly removing the need for
> Sonet/SDH,...
But on the flip side, a lot of folk are still
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:56:41PM +1100, Julien Goodwin wrote:
>
> What's needed is for an OEM to build a generic router chassis that has
> separate control plane, power, and forwarding modules that can be
> swapped as needed. Potentially ATCA might be a good platform for this
This is already
On 16/10/11 05:33, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> Hehe. "Tag switching will make core routers really cheap, you'll have
>> a few really big PE routers only". Wasn't that the line we were sold
>> with TDP?
>
> And they totally could be too, if anyone bothered to actually make them.
> You don't
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 02:56:01PM -0400, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>
> Most customers find that their Juniper boxes still operate at wire
> rate even when they load up some ugly filters. On some boxes in some
> cases, however, that is not true. But to generalize, M/MX does
> everything with RAM, p
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> ...whereas because ACLs are variable length, determined by customers and
> possibly large, performance of a RAM-based ACL algorithm is hard to predict,
> and people want predictable performance, and usually line-rate performance.
It's not so m
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:04:37AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> ...whereas because ACLs are variable length, determined by customers
> and possibly large, performance of a RAM-based ACL algorithm is hard
> to predict, and people want predictable performance, and usually
> line-rate performance
Peter,
One way to accomplish what I think you are asking for is to use
different BGP next hops for destinations you want to have native IP
switched traffic and those which you want to transport over MPLS LSP (TE
or LDP). Then you are only constructing MPLS LSPs to those next hops you
would li
On 10/14/2011 07:04 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Michele Bergonzoni wrote:
can only be done with TCAM. For those who want more info on this issue, this
is the very interesting reference that I received in a private email:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/sram-ip-forward
10 matches
Mail list logo
