When trying out VMX there was a knob to enable HQOS. I believe it might
have been "flexible-queuing-mode". Will double when I can.
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> vMX Supporting HQoS Yet?
>
> That feature will be key for Subscriber management / bandwidth enforcement
> of subscrib
> > In the cisco world you can take CSR1K
>
> Yes, that is a good option as well, vBNG.
>
> I think CSR1000v is more mature than vMX in this case, as of today.
>
>
+1 for CSR1000v. We are using it for the same purpose. But the licensing is
a bit dorky. You can buy yearly 1G throughput license but t
vMX Supporting HQoS Yet?
That feature will be key for Subscriber management / bandwidth enforcement of
subscriber plans. I know -Q and -EQ definitely supporting it form day 1 in HW;
bit haven't had luck with vMX yet. (vMX still lacking feature parity last time
I checked... especially 'services'
On 9/May/16 21:55, Nitzan Tzelniker wrote:
> You can take vMX and do subscriber management on it (It is very new so be
> careful )
> It has license for 1K subscribers and it should be the best for you
>
> http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf
>
> In the cisco wo
You can take vMX and do subscriber management on it (It is very new so be
careful )
It has license for 1K subscribers and it should be the best for you
http://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000522-en.pdf
In the cisco world you can take CSR1K
Nitzan
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:
Jason,
I could be wrong, but I believe MX5 do B-RAS, using subscriber management.
my-user@my-router> show system license
License usage:
Licenses LicensesLicensesExpiry
Feature name usedinstalled needed
scale-subscribe
Thanks Mark!
I know on an existing MX5 I have deployed, it enabled 1000 sub license but only
for 30 days. After that it disabled the functionality.
I will look over the ASR selection again!
From: Mark Tinka
To: Jason Warren ; Giuliano Medalha
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Sent:
On 9/May/16 21:03, Jason Warren via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Honestly 10G interfaces is not needed now nor anytime soon but would be nice
> to have the option down the road. The current router is acting as B-RAS and a
> VLAN router on 3 interfaces. I'm only pushing 400-500MB per physical
> interf
Honestly 10G interfaces is not needed now nor anytime soon but would be nice to
have the option down the road. The current router is acting as B-RAS and a VLAN
router on 3 interfaces. I'm only pushing 400-500MB per physical interface. The
main reason for the upgrade is to refresh the age of the
On 9/May/16 20:55, Giuliano Medalha wrote:
> Would be better to buy MX104 instead of MX80.
I think neither.
I know a network struggling with the slow control plane on the MX104,
which is not that different from the MX80.
You're better off with an Intel-based control plane.
To be honest, if t
Would be better to buy MX104 instead of MX80.
Do you need 10G interfaces or not ?
If you need only 20 x 1G SFP is better option to use MX104 (MX5 option)
because of 4GB DRAM option.
Do not forget the to buy SSM license (for CoA) optional ok ?
Att,
Giuliano
Giuliano Cardozo Medalha
Systems
I have a Cisco 7206VXR that I am wanting to replace with a Juniper MX80
(purchased as an MX5) or similar. The main core function is just Ethernet
routing... but it also is acting as a B-RAS router for about 400 PPPoE
sessions. I know the license cost on the MX80 for subscriber services is close
Thanks Raphael,
My core links are untagged typically... in rare case I'll tag, and it
doesn't seem to be a problem, I haven't done that on acx5048 yet
Ok I did MEF EPL (eline port based carrying any and all vlans, tagged and
untagged...) works. I shut and deactivate core bgp for this test to pro
lo0.0 interface is to be configured under "set interfaces lo0 blah". Because
you really don't want a changing lo0 IP if there's a switchover.
Usually in re0/1 groups for MX (or member0/1 for Virtual Chassis EX switches,
or member0/1-re0/1 for Virtual Chassis MX) you define a hostname mentioning
Le 06/05/2016 à 19:17, Aaron a écrit :
As I recall, vpls bgp ad w/ldp sig worked interop between all these
Cisco ASR9K
Cisco ASR920 (2 flavors as I recall)
Cisco ASR903
Cisco ME3600
Juniper MX104
Juniper ACX5048
... all those in same vpls elan
Cool.
My l3vpn mpls vrf (routi
Thank you!
However, if I understand correctly that configuration snippet is from the fxp0 interface.
I can't see an lo0 interface being mentioned anywhere in your configuration. Which part
of your configuration comes from "set re0 interfaces lo0 unit 0 family inet address
[address/prefix-lengt
In this example Raphael set two different addresses for fxp0 for each RE
(.10, .11) and a 'virtual' one (.9) which reside only on the master RE.
I do not recommend the use of fxp0, (rather use in -band management, and
serial oob in case of failure), unless you are totally sure of your
manageme
Here the config for the 2 re
groups {
re0 {
system {
host-name re0.mx1.fqdn;
}
interfaces {
fxp0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.10.10.9/24 {
master-only;
Well the documentation can be confusing.
In re0 and re1 group you put the configuration specific to one RE. On my
router I only set the host-name.
The loopback does not have to be different between the two RE, so you
can let it on the standard hierarchy.
--
Raphael Mazelier
Le 09/05/2016 à
Hello,
I am new to networking and trying to understand the initial configuration on a
Juniper MX router with dual REs:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.2/topics/task/configuration/routing-engine-dual-initial-configuration.html
Step 6 is the following:
" Set the loopback interface a
Hi
Does anyone know if it's possible to obtain 3rd party memory for the
RE-S-1600X4?
I have some lab devices that I would like to upgrade
Sent from my iPhone
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/lis
21 matches
Mail list logo
