s hard not to continue in this direction.
>
>
> Dan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Laurent HENRY [mailto:laurent.he...@ehess.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:23 AM
> To: Dan Farrell
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability wi
ess.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:23 AM
To: Dan Farrell
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ?
Thank you !
No weird bugs encountered ?
Le Monday 21 Ju4ne 2010 23:25:13 Dan Farrell, vous avez écrit :
We leverage the EX3200
ion.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Laurent HENRY [mailto:laurent.he...@ehess.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:23 AM
To: Dan Farrell
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ?
Thank you !
No weird bugs encountered ?
Le Mond
Thank you !
No weird bugs encountered ?
Le Monday 21 Ju4ne 2010 23:25:13 Dan Farrell, vous avez écrit :
> We leverage the EX3200 and 4200's extensively in our network, for edge,
> core, and access.
>
> As far as edge (ISP connectivity) we use EX3200's in pairs- each EX3200 has
> a separate peer
On 22/06/10 18:13, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> With a healthy dose of complex commit scripts you can get an MX commit
> time up to 20 seconds in no time flat. Well at least you could, I
> noticed they did something in 9.6 to make it a lot faster (at least for
> me, with commit sync, etc). EX on
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:38:21AM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > Guess you never had a heavily configured M10 or M20 if you think that 20
> > seconds is a long time to commit. I'll admit that I have gotten spoiled
> > by the speed of the MX series, though.
>
> Yup - but how long will it stay
> Guess you never had a heavily configured M10 or M20 if you think that 20
> seconds is a long time to commit. I'll admit that I have gotten spoiled
> by the speed of the MX series, though.
Yup - but how long will it stay that way? Juniper seems to be adding
more BRAS capabilities to the MX all th
> From: Dan Farrell
> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:33:50 -0700
> Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
>
> With 10.0.S1.1 the only headaches we encounter with our loaded
> configuration on a 2-member 4200 stack (~850+ RVI's total, some on
> OSPF) is the time it takes for the configuration to b
er.net] On Behalf Of Ross Vandegrift
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:33 AM
To: Laurent HENRY
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX 4200 stability with BGP and OSPF redistribution ?
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:29:00PM +0200, Laurent HENRY wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am thin
We leverage the EX3200 and 4200's extensively in our network, for edge, core,
and access.
As far as edge (ISP connectivity) we use EX3200's in pairs- each EX3200 has a
separate peer session to each upstream provider, providing redundancy
(high-availability) without merging the two units as one
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:29:00PM +0200, Laurent HENRY wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am thinking about using two EX 4200 as redondant border routers of
> my main Internet link.
>
> In this design, I would then need to use BGP with my ISP and OSPF for inside
> route redistribution.
>
> Reading t
On Monday 21 June 2010 06:29:00 pm Laurent HENRY wrote:
> Does anyone actually use these features actively with
> this platform ?
We once used 2x EX4200-24F's as routers located in the
centre of a core network built to drive a regional operator
conference.
They ran iBGP + IS-IS (IPv6 support
12 matches
Mail list logo
