On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 08:53:19PM +0200, Johan Borch wrote:
> Is it a good or bad idea to run IP transit (full table ipv4 & ipv6) in a
> MPLS L3VPN and rely on the MP-BGP to carry routes around or is it better to
> skip the MPLS part and run iBGP between the routers with transit links?
I'm very m
Message-
From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Saku Ytti
Sent: 02 September 2014 07:44
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Full table in L3VPN
On (2014-09-02 06:56 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
> This is one of those polarizing questions wh
On (2014-09-02 06:56 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
> This is one of those polarizing questions where you'll get
> an equal share of answers from both sides of the bench.
I think main reason is, because it appears scary, and I subscribe to that
notion myself.
When I try to explain it to myself in te
On Monday, September 01, 2014 08:53:19 PM Johan Borch wrote:
> Is it a good or bad idea to run IP transit (full table
> ipv4 & ipv6) in a MPLS L3VPN and rely on the MP-BGP to
> carry routes around or is it better to skip the MPLS
> part and run iBGP between the routers with transit
> links?
This
Hi Johan,
What type of hardware are we talking here? Also, whats your end goal? Cant
really say which is better without knowing what you need at the end of the day
--
Payam Chychi
Network Engineer / Security Specialist
On Monday, September 1, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Johan Borch wrote:
> Hi!
>
Hi!
Is it a good or bad idea to run IP transit (full table ipv4 & ipv6) in a
MPLS L3VPN and rely on the MP-BGP to carry routes around or is it better to
skip the MPLS part and run iBGP between the routers with transit links?
Any pros/cons with convergence time?
Regards
Johan
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
On Behalf Of Keegan Holley [keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:26 PM
To: juniper-nsp
Subject: [j-nsp] full table?
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not?
Hi Keegan,
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question is
understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
upstreams. We would obviously have to have a few copies of t
2011/9/20 Pavel Lunin
>
> Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
>> of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question
>> is
>> understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
>> upstreams. We would obviously hav
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question is
understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
upstreams. We would obviously have to have a few copies of the table fo
2011/9/20 Mark Tinka
> On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 01:26:07 AM Keegan Holley
> wrote:
>
> > Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or
> > why not? In light of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm
> > curious what others thing. This question is
> > understandably subjective. We have
On 9/20/11 10:26 , Keegan Holley wrote:
> Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
> of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question is
> understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
> upstreams. We would obviou
On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 01:26:07 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
> Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or
> why not? In light of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm
> curious what others thing. This question is
> understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no
> more than thr
On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
> of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question is
> understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
> upstreams. We
Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or why not? In light
of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm curious what others thing. This question is
understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no more than three
upstreams. We would obviously have to have a few copies of the table for
c
Hi Rolf,
Truman is correct.
I just found that the J4350 you are referring to (Just so that the forum knows,
Rolf and I work for the same company) has 1Gig RAM installed on it but is
already 81% Utilized.
...@> show chassis routing-engine
Routing Engine status:
Temperature
Yes you can do this on a J-series. If you can handle the full table in inet.0,
you can handle this full table in a VRF. Just make sure you have enough RAM to
hold a full table (regardless of the type of routing-instance) ...
Truman
On 20/06/2010, at 4:53 PM, Rolf Mendelsohn wrote:
> Hi All,
Hi All,
Note that my J experience is limited, I've mainly been exposed to lots of C
over the years... :>).
We are looking to try and squeeze a Full table into a vrf on the J Series.
Is this possible, or is the only bet to go for an M Series or C7200/NPE-G1 or
2?
cheers
/rolf
__
18 matches
Mail list logo
