Hey,
>From BOM POV if you have to pay for the XEONs it probably isn't very
good value proposal per Mpps. However if you have poor pricing for MX,
good pricing on your XEON and modest pps need, maybe it makes sense.
I've seen JNPR sell MX80 under 4k (back when they were newish, before
MX104 existe
Hi,
Since it was mentioned, I have been wondering the cost of going with
the software solution vMX as opposed to real hardware. Seems like it
should be a lot better right?
Mike-
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck
On 04/13/2018 02:30 PM, bo...@pobox.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, mike+j...@willitsonline.com wrote:
>
>> Id even like to do cgnat for up to 5000 users but not sure if a
>> single box setup would be wise.
>
> I'm curious why you and other service providers are interested in
> CGNAT when IPv4 a
Hi Jeff
For me "show route" is all about troubleshooting and age is a big part
of that.
My believe of the juniper age for a bgp prefix has always been that it
reflects the time it has been valid. Even though it's not completely
true as hidden routes retains it's age when the route becomes valid.
On 19/Apr/18 16:50, Josh Richesin wrote:
> I think it is by design as well, but really defeating the purpose therefore
> misleading us – the loyal customers. Juniper is an excellent platform, but
> sometimes you want / need to start small and grow into a device. Like
> previously mentioned,
5 matches
Mail list logo
