Switches Juniper

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 07:09:49 AM Jack Bates wrote:

> 1) ERX switches were aquired by Juniper.

I think you (and the OP) meant EX. ERX is, as you know, the 
BRAS side of things (Unisphere, et al).

AFAIK, only the EX2500 was an acquisition. The rest of the 
EX line, particularly the launching EX3200/4200 were all 
built from the ground-up.

> 2) M line can terminate a tunnel on the RE, but it CANNOT
> forward traffic to it. Traffic does not forward to the
> RE on a Juniper except for control plane. The MX line
> (and perhaps future M series line cards?) has trio which
> supports man services pic functions directly on the MPC
> linecards via trio chipset. It sucks, but it makes
> sense. Tunnels weren't supported in hardware chipset,
> Junipers isolate the RE control plane. So naturally,
> services which must be processed at a software level
> must go on a services pic (or DPC on the MX, though trio
> is getting massive updates to support the services DPC
> feature sets on the linecards themselves).

While I don't like it, I understand why a Tunnel PIC was 
needed to run tunnels on a Juniper box. The only problem was 
that when tech. had matured sufficiently to support tunnels 
on line cards, Juniper still continued to push Tunnel/MS/AS-
PIC's, eating up valuable router slots, sending more money 
out the door, and complicating deployments somewhat for 
something as simple as a tunnel.

> 3) EX is enterprise level, definitely not carrier grade,
> and it has an extra license to support ISIS/BGP (though
> IPv6 is a freebie)

I suspect the OP was talking about the EX3200. It's possible 
it requires an IPv6 license, but I'm running v6 on them with 
no issue. IS-IS complains of needing a license, though, as 
does BGP, but it still runs.

> commit confirm

IOS XR now has comparable support.

> issu

Never been sold by the ISSU circus. I still run upgrades in 
maintenance windows :-).

> Traffic never suddenly backs up to being processed by the
> RE at a software level (oh, gee, how'd my processor
> crash with 10GE of traffic suddenly switched to it
> because of some little silly command Cisco?).

You know what, I've never really checked, but I have an 
inkling feeling Cisco don't support that anymore in their 
newer kit, e.g., CRS, ASR9000, e.t.c.

Let me ask my SE.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20111019/bc7cad43/attachment.bin