nanog mailing list archives
Re: Mx204 alternative
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:02:33 +0200
On 2/Sep/19 10:52, Brandon Martin wrote:
I try to avoid them in customer-facing applications, too. And in intra-network situations, I don't know why you'd be LAGging 1Gbps links anymore.
In the backbone, we moved away from LAG's to ECMP. The only places we run Layer 2 LAG's is on switch<=>router trunks (in the edge), and of course, on peering routers facing the exchange point.
But yeah, MX204 and similar LCs on the chassis platforms have some bizarre port usage/speed limitations. Juniper has a little web page to validate your port configurations, but it still seems easy to hit gotchas like this.
You need to have regular lunches with your Juniper SE to get on top of this :-)... Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Hank Nussbacher (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Martin (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aled Morris via NANOG (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Aled Morris via NANOG (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Gavin Henry (Sep 02)
- RE: Mx204 alternative Phil Lavin (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Mark Tinka (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Hank Nussbacher (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Valdis Klētnieks (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative tim () pelican org (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Brandon Butterworth (Sep 02)
- Re: Mx204 alternative Kenneth McRae via NANOG (Sep 02)