Awesome! Thanks Chuck
On 6/25/12 9:13 AM, "Chuck Anderson" wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:23:36AM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
>> It had its limitations, though:
>> * This was on 10.1. No ISSU available, so couldn't set a high SLA
>> * No SNMP polling was available then of the fiber VC po
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:23:36AM +, Paul Zugnoni wrote:
> It had its limitations, though:
> * This was on 10.1. No ISSU available, so couldn't set a high SLA
> * No SNMP polling was available then of the fiber VC ports. If you had
> issues with dirty fiber or weak signal, you'd have to fi
I don't believe an EX VC fiber port will work in James' provider-offered
VPLS scenario for the reason that VPLS uses MAC learning to operation, and
I believe the VC-ports on the EX assume a directly connected VC port from
a neighboring EX. However, if the provider was offering him a pseudo wire
ser
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 01:47:43PM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote:
Latency is a consideration given your control-plane is not
distributed. What happens when it gets partitioned is a bigger issue.
That is a problem when they're all in the same rack and there's a
ring of stacking cables, it's a bigg
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote:
The MX implementation of VCCP uses standard 802.1Q with a vlan-id of 4094.
I'm sure the EX is the same as well. The maximum latency is 100ms.
I don't know about the MX but this whitepaper:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/implem
The MX implementation of VCCP uses standard 802.1Q with a vlan-id of 4094.
I'm sure the EX is the same as well. The maximum latency is 100ms.
Although I agree having a virtual chassis span a WAN isn't the best idea
ever.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems En
On 6/24/12 11:11 AM, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Joel jaeggli wrote:
extending the control-plane of an ethernet switch over tens of
kilometers is a imho a seriously bad idea.
Why, actually? Latency issues?
Latency is a consideration given your control-plane is
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Joel jaeggli wrote:
extending the control-plane of an ethernet switch over tens of
kilometers is a imho a seriously bad idea.
Why, actually? Latency issues?
rgds,
Sascha
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-
On 6/24/12 09:20 , Sascha Luck wrote:
> James,
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:43:22PM +1000, James Jimenez wrote:
>> I am curious with a EX4200 as to the requirements of the uplink ports
>> when
>> attempting to use VCT / VCCP. Juniper documentation says a 1000BaseTX SFP
>> module is unable to be
James,
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:43:22PM +1000, James Jimenez wrote:
I am curious with a EX4200 as to the requirements of the uplink ports when
attempting to use VCT / VCCP. Juniper documentation says a 1000BaseTX SFP
module is unable to be used however I have been told that this does in fact
w
Hi All,
I am curious with a EX4200 as to the requirements of the uplink ports when
attempting to use VCT / VCCP. Juniper documentation says a 1000BaseTX SFP
module is unable to be used however I have been told that this does in fact
work and the documentation may not have caught up yet?
I am also
11 matches
Mail list logo
