On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 08:41:42AM -0700, Harry Reynolds wrote:
> Hey Richard, I had raised 101569 for the bypass bouncing after bandwidth
> related resignal, and was told by DE this was expected behavior. At the
> time the explanation made sense. If a bypass m is protecting lsp n, and
> lsp n is t
filed if you feel this is unacceptable.
Regards
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard A
Steenbergen
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 6:54 PM
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] LDP/RSVP interop
On Mon
On Monday 29 September 2008 09:54:06 Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> For an LSP with the head on Juniper and tail on Cisco,
> this works around Cisco's inability to set an igp cost of
> 0 on its loopback interface. If you ever wondered why the
> #$%^& your lsp cost was 1 higher than your igp cost,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 07:34:20AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Monday 29 September 2008 04:08:49 David Ball wrote:
>
> > You can certainly use both LDP and RSVP on the Juniper
> > box with no problems. RSVP routes in inet3 are preferred
> > over LDP routes, so LDP can actually act as a bit of
On Monday 29 September 2008 04:08:49 David Ball wrote:
> You can certainly use both LDP and RSVP on the Juniper
> box with no problems. RSVP routes in inet3 are preferred
> over LDP routes, so LDP can actually act as a bit of a
> backup in case you had a massive RSVP failure. I'm doing
> this
You can certainly use both LDP and RSVP on the Juniper box with no
problems. RSVP routes in inet3 are preferred over LDP routes, so LDP
can actually act as a bit of a backup in case you had a massive RSVP
failure. I'm doing this in my network.
Can't speak for the Cisco.
David
2008/9/28 Bit
Experts,
I need to setup a limited number of LSPs where the PE device is Juniper
(MX and T320) and the P are Cisco 76xx. Are both LDP and RSVP valid
options? Or are there interop issues I should be aware?
Thanks,
Bit.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list junipe
7 matches
Mail list logo
