hey,
Yep, Juniper told us at the time that Fusion was based on open
standards (802.1BR) and not proprietary in any way. Funny how they
don't support the use of any other 802.1BR complaint device and, I
doubt it would work. They must have some property gubbins in there
like pushing the Fusion
Hmmm, I just recently turned on inline jflow on my mpc7e-mrate in a MX960, and
I don’t think I did anything with a license.
Aaron
Hi Aaron,
that's correct. It works without installing a license.
As Nick stated, they're trust-based.
Regards,
Alex
On Nov 7, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Alex D. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 20:33, James Bensley wrote:
> Yep, Juniper told us at the time that Fusion was based on open standards
> (802.1BR) and not proprietary in any way. Funny how they don't support the
> use of any other 802.1BR complaint device and, I doubt it would work. They
> must have
On 8 November 2018 14:23:02 GMT, Tarko Tikan wrote:
>hey,
>
>> There is
>> nothing wrong with layer 2 aggregation switches in my opinion, the
>> only technical advantage in my opinion to using SP Fusion for a layer
>> 1 extension to a router compared to a layer 2 switch is that SP
>Fusion
>>
hey,
There is
nothing wrong with layer 2 aggregation switches in my opinion, the
only technical advantage in my opinion to using SP Fusion for a layer
1 extension to a router compared to a layer 2 switch is that SP Fusion
is one device to configure and monitor instead of two.
Except that it's
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 13:03, Antti Ristimäki wrote:
> Wrt the original question about possible issues with Fusion, we have faced
> quite a many. Currently one of the biggest pains is to get CoS configured
> properly on Fusion ports. We have a case open, where any CoS scheduler change
> stops
6 matches
Mail list logo
