Hi Phil,
No, it can't. The client can pass traffic via the real IPv6 address.
Try
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 09:07 AM, Try Chhay wrote:
>
> In the result client is unable to ping virtual IPv6 address. Any idea?
>>
>>
> Can the client pass traffic via
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Riccardo S
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:36 AM
> To: je...@atlantech.net
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper equivalent to Cisco
Hi Eric
I guess 3750X could be an option.
By the way the use needed by this machine is a ethernet customer aggregator
(hence many eth ports) with the need of BGP/PIM sessions for mcast
redistribution from the core (hence needs of BGP/PIM but no MPLS).
I know EX4200 can support up to 128 BG
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Riccardo S
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:04 AM
> To: jackson@gmail.com
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper equivalent to Cis
Hi Tim
indeed was Cisco directly telling me to use C3800X but I guess I know why
I was thinking to EX4200 or EX4550...
MPLS is not needed.
Cisco 3400E has only 10/100 24 ports and 2 combo as far as I know...
Ric
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 07:56:06 -0600
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Juniper equivalent
Any of the EX3200/3300/4200 meet those requirements, but do not have the
full MPLS suite that the 3800X will have, nor do they have the buffers that
the 3800X does.
If that's all you want from a switch, the 3800X is overkill, maybe look at
ME3400E vs EX4200/3300..
--
Tim
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at
Which is,
from your point of view, the equivalent model of Cisco 3800X metro ethernet ?
I’m
focusing on the following feature needed:
-
At
least 24 gigaethernet ports
-
Full
BGP support
-
Full
multicast support
-
Ethernet-aggregation
(LAG)
-
7 matches
Mail list logo