On 11/11/14 8:16 am, "Stefan Cioata" wrote:
>
>c) I would like to implement git. That will require at minimum to have
>the
>user on the ".gz transferred file.
You can have an event script triggered by UI_COMMIT_COMPLETE and the
script can get you this info.
Thanks,
Pallavi
_
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:02:19 PM Daniel Verlouw
wrote:
> vRR ? We’re about to re-evaluate our RR deployment and
> going ‘virtual / PC-based’ is certainly high on our
> list. Too bad there's hardly any info on vRR around, or
> I'm looking in the wrong place (which is not terribly
> hard
Speaking of RRs, has anyone actually looked at:
http://www.metaswitch.com/products/networking/virtual-route-reflector
?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> Hej Mark,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> I'd deploy vMX as a route reflector. I was actu
Hi,
> For starters, at least when we evaluated it last year, there was no switching
> or IRB support.
there is now, bridge-domains + IRB with L3VPN is what we use without a problem.
We have a few hundred ACX deployed for our mobile backhaul and will
ramp up that number over the next few months.
Hej Mark,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I'd deploy vMX as a route reflector. I was actually
> evaluating vRR a few months ago, but it still had a long way
> to go, so went with Cisco's CSR1000v (which is, basically,
> IOS XE) instead.
would you be able to elaborate on your
Yes they don't really fit will with metro fiber rings unless everything is
indoors, you certainly wouldn't deploy them at a cell tower or outdoor
enclosure. Really today the ALU 7210, ACX, ME3600, etc. are cheaper
anyways.
The vMX really has two flavors, one for low speed and one for high sp
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 05:44:16 PM Eric Van Tol
wrote:
> Or am I misunderstanding the vMX? Not trying to be
> snarky, it's a serious question. I am not sure where I
> would see the vMX in a production service provider
> network, but I am certainly open to ideas.
I'd deploy vMX as a ro
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 05:09:49 PM Phil Bedard
wrote:
> Maybe vMX is the answer to a 1U MX at this point,
> depending on the throughput you really need.
This is only useful where you need a cheap router for some
routing and port density is of no concern. So route
reflectors, simple rou
-Original Message-
From: Phil Bedard [mailto:phil...@gmail.com]
>Maybe vMX is the answer to a 1U MX at this point, depending on the
>throughput you really need.
How do you stuff a minimum of 12x1G and 4x10G interfaces into a 1U server that
needs to have a maximum 26" depth and 100F+
Maybe vMX is the answer to a 1U MX at this point, depending on the
throughput you really need.
Phil
On 11/13/14, 1:49 PM, "Eric Van Tol" wrote:
>-Original Message-
>From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
>Of Austin Brower
>Sent: Thursday, Novemb
It's an odd hardware platform compared to the rest of their offerings.
Does not support 10G which is really needed these days. It's one of those
platforms you are leery of them dropping at any time, kind of like the
EX8200...
Phil
On 11/13/14, 11:34 AM, "Austin Brower" wrote:
>On Nov 12
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Austin Brower
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 6:35 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] ACX is just not there (was Re: EX4550 L2Circuit/VPN to MX80/lt
Interface)
>So far, Eric,
On Nov 12, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> Juniper have continued to come short in this area. And no,
>> the ACX doesn't cut it.
>
> Agreed. ACX is just not there. It baffles me why Juniper has left
> this market untapped. The
Le 13/11/14 01:29, Chip Gwyn a écrit :
I was using RSVP at the time, sorry I left that part out. If you're getting
one-way traffic it might be that one of the LSPs isn't up.
--chip
That's it but I wonder why ?
EX side :
rancid@sr-dc2-01# run show mpls lsp
Ingress LSP: 1 sessions
To
14 matches
Mail list logo
