[119428] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper M120 Alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Pierotti)
Wed Nov 18 16:09:06 2009
In-Reply-To: <1a9450c80911180604u461875f4pab847d905c688d73@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phil Pierotti <phil.pierotti@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:08:04 +1100
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.nanog@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net
> >wrote:
> The design differences you describe there relate more to traditional IOS vs
> JUNOS, rather than IOS XR vs JUNOS. IOS XR uses candidate configurations,
> commit, rollback etc.
>
> Paul.
>
