-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:11:31PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote:
The new MX REs run 64-bit Junos.
64-bit JUNOS != SMP enabled. The only difference is the amount of ram it
can address, those fancy quad-core CPUs
And then there was vyatta...
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:15PM -0400, jnprb...@gmail.com wrote:
Although expensive, you can buy the JCS1200 with 64-bit Junos to run
as a standalone RR. It's
10.4R4 seems usable on MX960 with mixed DPC/MPC. There is a packet
discard bug on MX80 though - it randomly mistakes non-first fragments
as L2TP packets and as no L2TP service is configured, discards those
packets.
Would you happen to have the PR for this?
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:57:43PM -0400, Keegan Holley wrote:
10.4R4 seems usable on MX960 with mixed DPC/MPC. There is a packet
discard bug on MX80 though - it randomly mistakes non-first fragments
as L2TP packets and as no L2TP service is configured, discards those
packets.
Would you
I've had 10.4r4 in my lab MX960 for a couple of weeks now with no real issues,
but not much test traffic either.
I'm planning to deploy it later this summer to prep for MS-DPC's that are on
the way.
I do have an odd case of a nat service breaking a filter based policer, but on
for Nat'd
On Friday, June 03, 2011 10:10:04 AM Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
Price aside, anyone who wants a 12U RE needs to have
their head examined. :) How freaking hard can it be to
take an off-the-shelf 1U PC, slap a Juniper logo on the
front, mark it up 20x like everything else, and sell it
to us
alot more MX80s.
Thanks,
Serge
- Original Message
From: Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
To: Doug Hanks dha...@juniper.net
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 9:10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:31:51AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote:
Hello,
Would it be possible for you to share what code version you recommend
for Trio? We've had a few MX80s in Prod with 10.2S6 for a while now.
We need to add MPC cards to our MX960s and are struggling what version
to go
On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:31:51 PM Serge Vautour wrote:
Would it be possible for you to share what code version
you recommend for Trio? We've had a few MX80s in Prod
with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC cards to
our MX960s and are struggling what version to go with.
Continue
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:04:09AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
One thing to think seriously about is whether you're going to run your
MX's with a mixture of DPC's and MPC's. Depending on which features
you need to turn on, you may not be able to boot DPC cards if you have
MPC's installed as
: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:04:09 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions
On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:31:51 PM Serge Vautour wrote:
Would it be possible for you to share what code version
you recommend for Trio? We've had a few MX80s in Prod
with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC cards to
our
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 12:17:15 AM Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
Agreed 100%, plus getting line-rate out of a mixed
DPC/MPC environment is a real bitch for a number of
reasons, so you'll be MUCH better off if you convert a
whole chassis at a time. Though I will say that 10.4R4
didn't
2011/6/2 Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:15PM -0400, jnprb...@gmail.com wrote:
Although expensive, you can buy the JCS1200 with 64-bit Junos to run
as a standalone RR. It's probably more economical if you could also
benefit from VPNv4 RRs for MPLS VPN
Thats a very good point. Â Vyatta is a solid product.
From: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
To: Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions
2011/6/2 Richard
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:31:51AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote:
Would it be possible for you to share what code version you recommend for
Trio?
We've had a few MX80s in Prod with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC
cards to our MX960s and are struggling what version to go with.
Hello all,
Could I get some of your opinions about the MX80 platform? I'm looking for
positive and negative opinions. Any gotchas I should know about?
I've always used the Cisco type of CLI, so there will be a learning curve
there. The traffic volume for this application will be 10-15g/sec of
-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Faubel
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:09 PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions
Hello all,
Could I get some of your opinions about the MX80 platform? I'm looking for
positive
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 04:26:54PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote:
Daniel,
I have nothing but good things to say about the MX80.
I have almost nothing but good things to say, now that 90-95% of the
cripling Trio-specific bugs have been worked out of the current code.
The integrated RE is probably
On 03/06/11 10:10, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The integrated RE is probably the biggest design limitation. For
example, we just got bit by a bad flash drive on one, which caused the
kernel to lock up when writing to the disk. This required a physical
That's the bigger problem. As I
Or build a redundant re in it. They can make the boards small it enough if
they want to...
On Jun 2, 2011 8:15 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 04:26:54PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote:
Daniel,
I have nothing but good things to say about the MX80.
I have
I think Juniper's answer to redundancy with the MX80s is to setup 2x
MX80's and use routing protocols to switch over from one to the other.
For a fully loaded box, it probably edges up on making an MX280 a
better deal, but for the smaller software-limited MX80's I could see
it being an ok deal.
Juniper would really do well to introduce a 1U small/simple external RE
which can be connected over Ethernet, to redundantize a box like the
MX80, and to be a reasonably sized BGP route reflector.
If there was a like button on j-nsp, I'd click it about this..
Outside of a few bugs we've
On 03/06/11 10:10, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Juniper would really do well to introduce a 1U small/simple external RE
which can be connected over Ethernet, to redundantize a box like the
MX80, and to be a reasonably sized BGP route reflector.
There was talk of a VC-like implementation for
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:47:30AM +1000, Julien Goodwin wrote:
There was talk of a VC-like implementation for the MX80, although I
don't know if that went anywhere.
Now that they have the XRE200 what about letting us install Junos64 on
it and making it a reflector platform.
We actually
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:15PM -0400, jnprb...@gmail.com wrote:
Although expensive, you can buy the JCS1200 with 64-bit Junos to run
as a standalone RR. It's probably more economical if you could also
benefit from VPNv4 RRs for MPLS VPN deployments.
Price aside, anyone who wants a 12U
On 6/2/11 7:06 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
We actually tested the XRE200 for RR use (since it's a hell of a lot
more sane than a JCS), but they specifically lock it down so you can't
run BGP on it directly. This is the only JUNOS platform which is SMP
enabled right now, and
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:11:31PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote:
The new MX REs run 64-bit Junos.
64-bit JUNOS != SMP enabled. The only difference is the amount of ram it
can address, those fancy quad-core CPUs only run on a single core. :)
--
Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
27 matches
Mail list logo
