[119370] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Mon Nov 16 19:28:39 2009
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:28:06 +0100
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4B01862E.8090101@linpro.no>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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) / Etherchannels (Cisco speak).
Might or might not be important when using bundled links to public
peering fabrics.
Best regards,
Daniel
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 window as it might happen that you configure a peering session and
whoops there goes your IBGP mesh... or all your other peerings, or, ...
</rant>
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
