Re: [j-nsp] QFX mc-lag and v6 ND

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Karl Brumund wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Adam Vitkovsky < > adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk> wrote: > >> > Phil Mayers >> > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:43 PM >> > >> > On 05/02/16 14:40, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: >> > >> > > -that's

Re: [j-nsp] QFX mc-lag and v6 ND

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > Phil Mayers > > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:43 PM > > > > On 05/02/16 14:40, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > > > > -that's the only occasion the internet where NDP and MC-LAG in listed > > > the same sentence,

Re: [j-nsp] Slow performance of the KRT queue

> Of Raphael Mazelier > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 9:30 PM > > Le 05/02/2016 19:32, Saku Ytti a écrit : > > > I think the fundamental problem here is that these fixes are > > attempting to make the symptoms less pronounced, rather than address > > the problem. > > Yep. But it is better than

Re: [j-nsp] QFX mc-lag and v6 ND

> Phil Mayers > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:43 PM > > On 05/02/16 14:40, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > > -that's the only occasion the internet where NDP and MC-LAG in listed > > the same sentence, which is not a good sign on its own. But no > > explanation about how it is done, especially the

Re: [j-nsp] Acx5048 vpls vlan-id

Ran into same limitation, started using the limited vlan remapping capabilities to push a dummy outer vlan ID to make all services share the vpls instance, but there are issues with this so been using separate routing-instances. Ball ache. On 05/02/2016, 21:59, "juniper-nsp on behalf of

Re: [j-nsp] QFX mc-lag and v6 ND (Phil Mayers)

In this case I think they may have over-engineered the process, or there are cases of concern i’m not aware of as to why they did it this way. I have not ever configured Cisco vPC, and I understand it is fairly complicated too, but Juniper’s MC-LAG config requirements seem way too complicated.