puck.nether.net
Sent: Tue, May 25, 2010 12:58:06 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What's the latest code you're running on a mx?
Just a followup on this thread. I've been testing 10.0R3.10 in the
lab with MX240, 480 and T640 and have had (somewhat surprisingly) good
results. L2VPN, L2
Just a followup on this thread. I've been testing 10.0R3.10 in the
lab with MX240, 480 and T640 and have had (somewhat surprisingly) good
results. L2VPN, L2ckt, BGP-signalled VPLS (all w/QoS), L3VPN, LDP &
RSVP w/FRR (haven't tested much TE yet, mind you), even dabbled in
loop-free alternates (
On Sunday 02 May 2010 01:31:44 am Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> Don't try to compare code between platforms, they're
> entirely different beasts. :) In my experience the
> answer for EX is almost always "run the latest and
> greatest", and our deployment tests w/EX8216s and 10.1S1
> have act
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:32:08PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:24:53AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > > Until trio cards start getting deployed, there is pretty
> > > much no reason why any sensible network would be running
> > > 10.x on an MX today.
> >
> > Or any pl
We have had pretty good luck so far with 9.5R4.3 on MX960s with DPCE-Rs.
On May 1, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:24:53AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>> Until trio cards start getting deployed, there is pretty
>>> much no reason why any sensible network would
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:24:53AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > Until trio cards start getting deployed, there is pretty
> > much no reason why any sensible network would be running
> > 10.x on an MX today.
>
> Or any platform, for that matter, I say.
Well, I've had pretty good luck with 10.x o
On Saturday 01 May 2010 07:56:32 pm Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> Hrm odd, the first we saw it was in 9.6S5, didn't see it
> in any previous version.
The box that spat the data I sent in my previous is (still)
running JUNOS 9.3R2.8, so it's definitely been in there for
a while.
Granted, alt
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 06:41:05PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Saturday 01 May 2010 04:01:38 am Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> > chassisd[1305]: %DAEMON-3-UI_CONFIGURATION_ERROR:
> > Process: chassisd, path: [edit groups BASE-FORWARDING
> > forwarding-options hash-key family], statement: ine
On Saturday 01 May 2010 04:01:38 am Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> chassisd[1305]: %DAEMON-3-UI_CONFIGURATION_ERROR:
> Process: chassisd, path: [edit groups BASE-FORWARDING
> forwarding-options hash-key family], statement: inet6,
> Could not retrieve the route-accounting setting
We've been get
PM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What's the latest code you're running on a mx?
Ahh, so 10.1 is needed then for the MX80 I'm guessing... We'll be testing
those soon in a POC where they will run VPLS, RSVP, COS, BGP, and L3VPNs...
Fri, April 30, 2010 3:01:38 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] What's the latest code you're running on a mx?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 09:55:23AM +0200, Bj?rn Tore wrote:
> We're running 10.0R2.10 on MX. Works quite well.
We just tested 10.0R3 on MX and it was a giant hot steaming mess. Am
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 09:55:23AM +0200, Bj?rn Tore wrote:
> We're running 10.0R2.10 on MX. Works quite well.
We just tested 10.0R3 on MX and it was a giant hot steaming mess. Among
other problems, they broke "| last" in cli, isis overload timeout no
longer functions (would never time out, stayed
OBrien, Will skrev:
Anyone using any 10. Code yet? I get to annoy my juniper reps later so input is
appreciated.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
We're running 10.0R2.10 o
Anyone using any 10. Code yet? I get to annoy my juniper reps later so input is
appreciated.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
14 matches
Mail list logo
