[j-nsp] GRE tunnel requires PIC?

[harry]

Routing transit traffic over fxp0 is dangerous because it can generate a
lot of traffic over the internal PFE/RE link (fxp1).

While a TS PIC is not free, I believe that Juniper felt it was better to
pay more for being able to turn on services without the possibility of
impacting existing services and routing protocol convergence/stability.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
> Richard A Steenbergen
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:59 AM
> To: billp
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] GRE tunnel requires PIC?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:56:52PM -0700, billp wrote:
> > I have been unable to find this in the documentation explicitly.
> > 
> > If I wish to configure a GRE (IP) tunnel between two 
> Juniper routers, 
> > is the Tunnel Services PIC required or recommended?
> 
> Without the tunnel services PIC, the only component which can 
> do tunneling is the routing engine. Without a tunnel pic you 
> can still configure tunneling, and it will work if you want 
> to tunnel out the fxp0, but since Juniper turned off the 
> PFE->re forwarding (to stop people from trying to route with 
> the fxp0 I guess) you can't do it if it involves sending the 
> packet over the normal hardware. Personally I think it is a 
> shame that you can't do 64Kbps of v6-in-v4 tunneling without 
> having to buy a tunnel pic 
> because some twits called for support on their fxp0 routing 
> configuration, but when has useful functionality and easing 
> the adoption of a new 
> protocol ever stopped a router vendor before. :)
> 
> -- 
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       
> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 
> 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/junipe> r-nsp
>