[j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date

[William McLendon]

I can only hope this is all some sort of terrible documentation error.  

That list of features requiring an AFL (at least for the EX32/42/45/8200/xre) is counter to how we have been selling and implementing this kit for years.  And our Juniper SE informed us a while back that 12.3 would no longer require an AFL for IPv6 routing protocols.  I get the need for an EFL on the lower end EX22/3300 since those are priced low for "simpler" deployments, with an optional advanced feature-set for corner-cases.  However if Juniper expects anyone to spend another MSRP $30k just to have 5+ OSPF interfaces or to enable VRRP on an EX8200 they are insane.

As a data point, I put 12.3R1.7 on an EX3200 we have in the lab, and did not get any license warnings / errors when configuring most of the protocols listed in that 12.3 licensing link ( http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.3/topics/concept/ex-series-software-licenses-overview.html#jd0e146 )

I configured virtual routers, OSPFv3, RIPng, MLD, MSDP, and VRRP and did not get any of "license needed" warnings in the candidate config or when committing -- the only one I got is the one you always got in previous versions when configuring BGP, MPLS, and ISIS without a license.  I can't remember if previous versions barked about IPv6 routing protocols or not, but it is not throwing warnings right now for RIPng or OSPFv3.


Will


On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:00 PM, juniper-nsp-request at puck.nether.net wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:25:21 +1000
> From: Craig Askings <caskings at ionetworks.com.au>
> To: "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Junos 12.3 Release Date
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACNe4wdvEb=cor6Hn2mCfbUGzVZMHvAecgjO2Wy8bqaPMP=e7Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Juniper now want you to buy a Advanced features licence to support "Unicast
> reverse-path forwarding (RPF)", this is getting absurd.