JUNOS evolution goes clearly to position Juniper boxes not only in the core
but also in the Edge. I do not see M5 and M10s as core routers (they have no
redundancy), E1 interfaces are not expected, ussually for the core.
Therefore, IMHO it makes sense that JUNOS implements in future Kompella,
Martini or RFC2547bis(as it does already).
Regards.
Javier.
^ ^
==============ooo====(.)v(.)====ooo=====
Javier Antich Romaguera
Network Consultant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TELINDUS
Pza. Ciudad de Viena, 6-2º
28040 Madrid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
javier.antich@telindus.es
tel: +34 91 456 00 08
fax: +34 91 536 10 74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about our products and services,
please visit our website http://www.telindus.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full connectivity & mobility
==================ooo0===0ooo========
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Andy Walden [SMTP:andy@tigerteam.net]
> Enviado el: jueves 26 de julio de 2001 23:56
> Para: steve ulrich
> CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Asunto: Re: [j-nsp] L2 VPN examples
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, steve ulrich wrote:
> >
> > uhh- i'm not following the logic there. if the JNPR's aren't to be
> > LER's why bother having L2/MPLS encapsulation on them? i'm not
> > looking to argue the densities and functionality i'm just curious as
> > to where you came to the conclusion that the JNPR's aren't designed to
> > be LER's.
>
> Densities, functionality...Juniper says they are core routers..
>
> > L2/MPLS functionality is a pretty moot point in the core of the
> > network. you don't care what the labelled encapsulations are you're
> > just switching based on label.
>
> That was my point. We agree.
>
> andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:36 EDT