![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
From: Shane Ronan <sronan () fattoc com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:51:48 -0500
Disagree, the EX is a very capable L3 router for LANs. On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Cord MacLeod wrote:
On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:2009/11/12 David Coulson <david () davidcoulson net>You could route /32s within your L3 environment, or maybe even leverage something like VPLS - Not sure of any TOR-level switches that MPLS pseudowire a port into a VPLS cloud though.Just to let you know - the Juniper EX4200 series only support a single label stack, and RSVP not LDP - plus they have a restricted BGP table size, so VPLS is out of the question.If you wanted something to do this, it's called an MX series. The ex is a switch... l3, but still a switch.
Current thread:
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR, (continued)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Malte von dem Hagen (Nov 12)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Tore Anderson (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR gordon b slater (Nov 15)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Simon Leinen (Nov 15)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Matthew Walster (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Randy Bush (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Stefan (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR rodrick brown (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Joe Loiacono (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Cord MacLeod (Nov 13)
- Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR Shane Ronan (Nov 13)