[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Subject: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?
From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 21:15:01 +0900
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAJygYd2ZJKJ4kabN3sLLFuVnDaop12ojYwpKFZ=39KKA-Mrb-A@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 8/6/2014 å??å¾? 09:13, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>   â?¦  6 aoÃ»t 2014 20:54 +0900, "Paul S." <contact at winterei.se> :
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OSPF require the AFL license
>> anyway to be 'legitly' ran?
> OSPF does not need a feature license on those models (it is needed on
> EX2200). AFL is needed for BGP, IS-IS and MPLS.

3300 too, apparently -- thanks for the correction.

References:
- [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?
  - From: contact at winterei.se (Paul S.)
- [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?
  - From: bernat at luffy.cx (Vincent Bernat)

Prev by Date: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?
Next by Date: Muni Fiber and Politics
Previous by thread: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?
Next by thread: Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software and Cisco IOS XE Software EnergyWise Crafted Packet Denial of Service Vulnerability
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread