Dave,
What I meant by the first case was simply this:
_______ _________
| |--Work-----------------| |
| Cisco | | Juniper |
| |--Prot-----------------| |
------- ---------
Two routers that are physically in proximity (in range of router optics
obviously), directly connected by an APS link to protect against link or
card failure. I take it this is not a common configuration on routers,
probably because IP protocols can also protect against this type of failure,
with the advantage of being able to use both links when everything is fine.
Aleks
-----Original Message-----
From: dave o'leary [mailto:doleary@juniper.net]
Sent: November 27, 2001 11:02 PM
To: Zawisza, Aleksander [CAR:D350:EXCH]; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: Juniper APS experience
At 10:29 PM 11/27/01 -0500, Aleksander Zawisza wrote:
>Dave,
>What exactly do you mean by "not interoperable"? Do you mean that a Cisco
>cannot be connected to a Juniper with an APS link,
I'm not sure of the intent of doing the above, at least if when we are
speaking of a Cisco it is specific to their router product line.
Perhaps if you could draw a diagram or explain what you mean
in more detail it would help me to understand.
>or that one Juniper and one Cisco cannot be neighbours in a router-sparing
>APS configuration?
This is what I meant, since I expect it is the most common use of
the router "APS" functionality. Unless something has changed in the
last year or two (which is entirely possible, I don't actually touch routers
much these days), the keepalive protocols used by Cisco and Juniper
to track which router is "working" and which is "protect" are different,
so one vendor's product can not back up the other's.
dave
>Aleks
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dave o'leary [<mailto:doleary@juniper.net>mailto:doleary@juniper.net]
>Sent: November 27, 2001 7:41 PM
>To: ronjeremy; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: Juniper APS experience
>
>At 09:28 PM 11/27/01 +0000, ronjeremy wrote:
> >any caveats to implementing APS on the juniper box? Does it work like the
> >Cisco APS? thanks
>
>Functionality is similar with similar parameters, but not interoperable.
>See this documentation page for more information.
>
><http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos51/swconfig51-interfaces/htm
>l/>http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos51/swconfig51-interfaces/h
>tml/
>interfaces-sonet-config2.html#1013931
>
> dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:38 EDT