Phil Pierotti wrote:
That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
running on (ie "traditional IOS")?
The general feeling is that XR won't be ported to a lot of existing
hardware, and trad
As a side note that many may be aware of, there are other Cisco
products/code bases that have these nice features.
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Cosgrove"
To: "Richard A Steenbergen"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Juniper M1
> That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
> truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
> running on (ie "traditional IOS")?
Obviously not speaking for Cisco here - but as a significant customer
we have had no indication that this
That's excellent news - any word on when Cisco will be back-porting these
truly useful features from XR to that platform which so many of us are still
running on (ie "traditional IOS")?
Phil P
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Paul Cosgrove <
paul.cosgrove.na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:24:24AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > >They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
> > >I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentional
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:24:24AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
> >I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentionally any more.
>
> They must have. This was new to me and came as a sho
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:28:06AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> Caveat: no MAC accounting on LAGs (IEEE speak) / Aggregated Ethernet (Juniper
> speak) / Etherchannels (Cisco speak).
>
> Might or might not be important when using bundled links to public
> peering fabrics.
Or for the very same go
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
They've definitely been improving it over the years though, so much that
I almost never trigger a session reset on me unintentionally any more.
They must have. This was new to me and came as a shock. I don't think
I've ever seen my m120 behave any different than m
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:28:06AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> PS: and of course JUNOS still undeterministically resetting unrelated
> BGP sessions for no good reason when modifying BGP configuration - so
> one is well-advised to do ANY configuration changes in the area of BGP
> within a maint wi
> PS: and of course JUNOS still undeterministically resetting unrelated BGP
> sessions for no good reason when modifying BGP configuration
cisco is deterministic. breathe on it and all sessions reset.
randy
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:04:46PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
> role that suits them very well in my opinion, no problems at all so far.
Caveat: no MAC accounting on LAGs (IEEE speak) / Aggregated Ethernet (Juniper
speak) /
Tore Anderson wrote:
* Gary Mackenzie
I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and
PE router roles but never as border routers.
We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's
Remember to request some quotes for MX-80, not yet released , soon to be out
"lower end" routers.
and MX240 3Ds.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx240/
Normally Juniper sales guys don't quote you things that are coming out soon
unless you specially ask for thi
Thanks everybody for the feedback. I'll likely be getting a few quotes for
MX series boxes I think, we're in the happy position of having a
completely e-net infrastructure so we're not limited by interface options.
Thanks again for recommendation, good to know other people are using them
successfu
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:14:52 - (GMT)
> From: "Gary Mackenzie"
>
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
> >>> routers
> >>> these da
* Gary Mackenzie
> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and
> PE router roles but never as border routers.
We've been using the MX-es as border routers for some time now. It's a
role that suits t
Cisco's ASR9000 is supposed to be in-line with the Juniper MX offering
(price-wise and feature-wise); more so than as 124xx, I hear.
On 2009-11-16, at 10:54 AM, "Gary Mackenzie" > wrote:
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
routers
these days, what is the consen
> I had looked briefly, does anybody here actually use them as peering
> routers? I've seen a few implementations using them in the MPLS P and PE
> router roles but never as border routers.
We use MX series as peering routers. They work very well.
Steinar Haug, AS 2116
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
>>> routers
>>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper
>>> M
>>> series routers?
I'd think the Juniper MX series might fit, as well as the Brocade
NetIron XMR. And of course the Cisco you already mentioned.
-brad
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering
routers
these days, what is the consensus
> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
> series routers?
Juniper MX series? Works great for us. Much nicer 10G prices than M120.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:04, Dale W. Carder wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
>> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
>> series routers?
>
> have you lo
On Nov 16, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Gary Mackenzie wrote:
> Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
> these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
> series routers?
have you looked at the MX series?
Dale
Having slightly lost track of what everybody is using for peering routers
these days, what is the consensus about the best alternative to Juniper M
series routers?
I'm asking as the prices to upgrade to 10Gbit capable Juniper units (ie.
an M120) seem prohibitively high so I'm looking to get a feel
24 matches
Mail list logo
