[188027] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper QFX5200-32C junos base services license and BGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanislaw Datskevich)
Fri Mar 4 03:18:18 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Stanislaw Datskevich <me@nek0.net>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:19:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <52dfe88a-30cc-0833-5948-7dccb22d7cd1@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
And the question is: is the QFX5200 platform that newer platform which
has license limits enforced?
It seems limits currently are "soft" as in previous platforms according
to vendor's documentation:
"Note: If you try to configure a feature that is not licensed, you will
receive syslog messages saying that you are using a feature that is
licensable and that you do not possess a license for the feature. If
you try to commit configuration changes for a feature that is not
licensed, you will receive a commit warning saying that you have
exceeded the allowed license limit for the feature."
>
> On 3/Mar/16 22:38, Tony Wicks wrote:
>
> >
> > Um, you do realise that all the major vendors (including that well
> > Known
> > vendor) have people on this list ? Sending a question about taking
> > advantage
> > of said vendors light handed approach to licencing to this list is
> > somewhat
> > less than subtle ?
> I think his use of the word "trick" is what triggered your firewall
> :-).
>
> He could easily re-phrase the question as "Is there any risk with
> running BGP on the QFX5200 with the license warning"?
>
> Juniper already know that a lot of operators run their kit this way.
> Their only recourse is to enforce license limits in software, and we
> are
> seeing that with later releases + newer platforms.
>
> Mark.
