[j-nsp] Basic doubt on unit

[Brandon Bennett]

What are you doubting?  That you have to do it?  That it's absolutely
necessary?  That Cisco is better in it's implementation that allows ip
addresses in the main interfaces config?

The idea is not to think about it as a "subinterface" but to think of it of
where the layer 3 configuration is at.   Physical interface properties live
at the interface level (e.g [edit interface ge-0/0/0]).  While any IP, IPv6,
MPLS, etc commands live at a unit interface.  Since certain type of
interfaces and encapsulations can do multiple logical connections multiple
units were needed.

This is where JunOS is really handy.  If you know the layout of where things
are at then it makes it easy to find or even guess configurations.   You
need do modify the MD5 password for OSPF?  Start looking in [edit protocols
ospf].   None of this putting ospf or other information directly on the
interface which provides for not only easy macros (groups and commit
scripts) in the future but just a great logical way to organize and view
your configuration.

So yes, a unit is always required.  JunOS is not IOS.  JunOS is better. :)
So don't try to force a square-peg in a round hole and keep an open mind
that if you let go of "old ways" that the new way may surprise you and if
you are like me you never want to go back.

-Brandon

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Taqdir Singh <singh.taqdir at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>  I am new to juniper.l could you please share  why junos is made such like
> we must define unit (subinterface) for any configuration like ip etc ?
>
> --
> Taqdir Singh
> Network Engineering
> (+91) 991-170-9496 | (+91) 801-041-5988
>
> One who asks is a fool for a moment, one who doesn't ask remains fool for
> ever
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>