Re: [j-nsp] Cheaper way to have 2x100G and 16x10G wire-speed in MX480

> Of Robert Hass > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:42 PM > > Hi > What is cheapest way to choose proper MPC/MICs to have 2x100G and > 16x10G all wire-speed plus possibility to extend my configuration to total > 32x10G and 4x100G ? > Impressive requirements, I'd recommend a POC test to make

Re: [j-nsp] remove-private for iBGP session

Hello, I'm very well aware of that which is why I'm confused. Here, PE is removing private AS before sending update to RR. Could anyone explain what are we missing here? Regards On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Hello Cydon, > > > Of Cydon

Re: [j-nsp] remove-private for iBGP session

Hello Cydon, > Of Cydon Satyr > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:35 PM > > Hello, > > I was under the impression that remove-private works for eBGP sessions, as > it does on Cisco routers (if my memory serves me right). > > But I notices that remove-private on a PE router would remove

Re: [j-nsp] Cheaper way to have 2x100G and 16x10G wire-speed in MX480

If you want full line rate to the fabric on all ports you can only use 12, but the oversubscription is small. The fabric BW is like 37G for the set of four ports. If you are sending traffic between two ports on the same PFE it doesn't count and you can get line rate on all 16 ports if your

Re: [j-nsp] Cheaper way to have 2x100G and 16x10G wire-speed in MX480

On 9/27/15 12:01 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > The 16x10G cards are not going to be full line rate at all packet > sizes and depending on destinations can't push full line rate due to > limitations to fabric BW on each PFE. afaik the 16 x 10 fixed mpc was 1.2:1 oversubscribed. > Phil > >

Re: [j-nsp] 14.2 trio flexible firewall matching?

Hey Michael, > I'm wondering if anyone on list has tried this or gotten decent caveat > information on this feature. I intend to lab it but haven't gotten around to > it yet. > >

Re: [j-nsp] routing to Inet from a VRF

On 23 September 2015 at 03:33, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hey Adam, > I’d like to ask what is the Juniper community preferred method to route > traffic to Internet from a VRF. > Methods I’m aware of are default route pointing to Internet VRF or FBF > directing the

Re: [j-nsp] Cheaper way to have 2x100G and 16x10G wire-speed in MX480

The 16x10G cards are not going to be full line rate at all packet sizes and depending on destinations can't push full line rate due to limitations to fabric BW on each PFE. Phil -Original Message- From: "Robert Hass" Sent: ‎9/‎26/‎2015 8:42 AM To:

Re: [j-nsp] remove-private for iBGP session

Cisco removes private AS numbers from updates sent to eBGP peers. So this is something you would have configured on PE router which is sending updates to your upstream ISP, for example. I don't recall ever trying this on iBGP sessions, which is why I'm confused by Juniper implementation. Adam,

Re: [j-nsp] remove-private for iBGP session

Hello, the point should be that the remove-private isn't a standard RFC based path modification. How would you configure the remove-private when it isn't done by the ingress PE Router before sending the route to the RR? How should the RR/Egress PE know from which routes it should remove the

Re: [j-nsp] MS-DPC

So I found this document ( https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos15.1/topics/reference/general/mx-series-software-license-features.html) and searched for "Multiservices DPC" and the following licenses came up: Table 1: Junos OS Feature License Model Number for MX Series Routers