On Monday, April 30, 2012 04:00:09 PM Keegan Holley wrote:
> I assumed you were exploring the configuration of the
> signaling protocols. My point was that I can't think of
> a situation (not saying that one doesn't exist) where I
> would run both protocols on purpose. At most it would
> happen du
On Friday, April 27, 2012 04:56:02 PM Colin Whittaker wrote:
> 9000 for IP mtu provided to end users / customers is a
> nice round number.
>
> I have started using 9100 as the internal mtu as it
> leaves 100 bytes for any encap overhead you might want
> from mpls/gre/etc and is easy to remember.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 03:54:56 PM Phil Bedard wrote:
> Yes thanks for mentioning that.
>
> My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said
> just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006
> or 240.
For me, the extra 2x slots on the MX480 wouldn't be a
compelling-enough
Up until I believe Junos 11.4, Junos did not use the GMPLS IGP extensions
to distribute SRLG information. All of the SRLG information was
statically configured via the routing-options->fate-sharing configuration.
The entire database is generally configured on every node if you are
using link or l
Hi,
I didn't know that option before. It seems, it can be very useful in
hierarchic networks. It's a pity that it is poor documented. But it
should be possible to use SRLG since ERO extension is calculated by the
ABR and the ABR has access to TED in both areas. Please, share your lab
results.
5 matches
Mail list logo
