Gentlefolk,
it is a long time I had to think or worry about this kind of thing.
I am familiar with l2circuits, and the fact that engineering them is
a bit painful I clearly remember. I also know 'protocol connections'
and like that approach as well as you need the added control sometimes.
I am c
Everyone,
I have some questions about the two variants here and I am
looking for the abstract way of doing things for a L2 transport
service on a Juniper network. I am sure several here on this
list can share some insight with ease.
With protocol connections you have the most fine- grained
traffi
Amos,
normally all ccc are vlan id / dlci 512-1023. You might want
to try 'extended-frame-relay-ccc' and it should take all of
those as CCC - but you will then not be able to use any of
the DLCIs for, say, IP or so. All CCC or 512-1023. I hope
that helps a bit already.
Alexander
On Mon, 6 August
Jonas,
try proto connections. If it works, be happy. :)
Been there, did that, just did the same, but
actually worked.
-ako
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:27:53 +0200, Jonas Frey wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i am trying to configure local-switching via l2circuits.
> Config is pretty straight-forward:
>
> local-
On Wed, 14 February 2007 02:14:30 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > since when is Juniper picky if one site is configured to SDH
> > and the other to SONET? I have seen it twice now, and this
>
> Since forever, unfortunately.
I did not see that at all before the 7.5 thingy we run. We
have n
Folks,
since when is Juniper picky if one site is configured to SDH
and the other to SONET? I have seen it twice now, and this
seriously annoys the XXX out of me. It worked without any
issue for years, now some variants of Juniper on the peering
partner's side only come up if I change the whole PI
6 matches
Mail list logo
