[124819] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper's artificial feature blocking (was legacy /8)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rubens Kuhl)
Mon Apr 5 13:13:17 2010
In-Reply-To: <1004041933.AA21122@ivan.Harhan.ORG>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:12:48 -0300
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
To: Michael Sokolov <msokolov@ivan.harhan.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
<msokolov@ivan.harhan.org> wrote:
> Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
>
>> Juniper. =A0If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you nee=
d
>> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. =A0OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
>> included in the base licence.
>
> Really? =A0My level of respect for Juniper has just dropped a few notches
> after reading this NANOG post - I didn't know that they were engaged in
> such DRM-like feature blocking practices.
>
(...)
> The reason I ask is because I've been considering building my own PIM
> for their J-series, a PIM that would terminate Nokia/Covad's flavor of
> SDSL/2B1Q at the physical layer and present an ATM interface to JunOS,
> optionally supporting NxSDSL bonding with MLPPPoA. =A0I have no love for
> routers that aren't 100% FOSS, but I couldn't find any other existing
> router platform which could be extended with 3rd-party physical
> interface modules, and designing and building my own base router chassis
> is not a viable option if I want to actually have something built before
> the Sun swells into a red giant and engulfs the Earth.
At least for IPv6 features, that feature gap only happens with Juniper
EX. All other Juniper gear has, according to them, IPv6 feature parity
within all license levels and packages.
Rubens
