[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       juniper-nsp
Subject:    Re: [j-nsp] 802.3ad between M5 & Cisco cat3750
From:       Niels Bakker <niels=juniper-nsp () bakker ! net>
Date:       2004-06-17 15:10:50
Message-ID: 20040617151050.GA19274 () snowcrash ! tpb ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

I have enormous difficulty separating your text from my original prose.
Please quote properly, and/or switch to a mailer that does so, instead
of Outlook.  Also, Broadwing's mail server sent me a notice that a mail
from you to me had been blocked; that looks extremely broken.


* Kashif.Khawaja@broadwing.com (Khawaja, Kashif) [Thu 17 Jun 2004, 15:53 CEST]:
> I guess I mis-stated my question. I was actually referring to adding L3
> capabilities to the aggregated interface. I was wondering if I
> could somehow get the virtual interface (aggregate bundle) working
> between J-C w/o and L2 control protocols and then assign layer 3
> properties to that virtual interface (almost like any other interface;
> at least an IP address). Looks I could if I just set the mode to ON on
> the Cisco side. Figured it out in the lab late last night. 

I see.  Yes, any `autonegotiation' is optional.  For CatOS the lingo is
something like "set trunk mode on" (instead of "desired"), I think.

Under JunOS you can configure interface aeN (N = 0, ...) just as you
would otherwise have configured ge-X/Y/Z.


> I have been getting push back from one of our partners because they
> want to be able to implement port security which, according to them,
> isn't possible with aggregation.

Port security on a Foundry switch works with aggregated links, although
we've found (and had fixed) some bugs in that area earlier this year.
This would be in a switching-only environment, though.


	-- Niels.

-- 
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]