Re: [j-nsp] in-band management interface vs. re firewall concepts/bcp

I would still use lo0.0 as your always up in-band mgmt interface. JunOS doesn't support putting management into a routing-instance and I have been pushing Juniper for this. You can use inet.0 for management and additional logical routers for data traffic, but that is different than a Cisco

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 7 July 2016 at 12:11, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 7 July 2016 at 13:22, Gavin Henry wrote: > > Hey, > >> Any developer can introduce bugs irrelevant of the language but some >> languages just have bugs that you >> would need to know C to fix. At Arista's level

[j-nsp] in-band management interface vs. re firewall concepts/bcp

Hey there, Coming from a Cisco background, I generally assign a loopback interface as my in-band management channel. I stick that into my management VRF and that’s that. Without knowing any better, my instinct would be to do the same in JunOS, but it seems as though lo0 is the control plane

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 7 July 2016 at 13:22, Gavin Henry wrote: Hey, > Any developer can introduce bugs irrelevant of the language but some > languages just have bugs that you > would need to know C to fix. At Arista's level they are using C as > everything touches C at some point be it >

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 7 July 2016 at 08:59, Phil Mayers wrote: > On 07/07/16 02:21, Gavin Henry wrote: > >> That last sentence is quite a sweeping statement about C. > > > The underlying basis for the statement - C is a hard language to program > well - is not at this point a controversial

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 7 July 2016 at 08:33, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 7 July 2016 at 04:21, Gavin Henry wrote: > > Hey, > >>> This comment was specifically about how they write the software. I >>> don't believe market has enough skilled labour to write any >>> significant SLOC on C.

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 07/07/16 02:21, Gavin Henry wrote: That last sentence is quite a sweeping statement about C. The underlying basis for the statement - C is a hard language to program well - is not at this point a controversial one, IMHO. You can make great software in any language. I think this

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

On 7 July 2016 at 04:21, Gavin Henry wrote: Hey, >> This comment was specifically about how they write the software. I >> don't believe market has enough skilled labour to write any >> significant SLOC on C. I think use of C puts any company in >> disadvantage due to the