I don't see how that is relevant to the L2MTU being lowered.Here is an older discussion of MPLS with these chipsets:
Will there be a similar version of the RB450G with bigger MTU?Our newest product, the RB750GL has MTU 4074, so don't complain about lack of progress in MIPS-BE routers ...
I would also like to know this.What are the MTUs of the new products, specifically the RB1200?
Is there somewhere that I can check what is and is not VRF aware?It is not possible to manager router via VRF.
Also ppp servers/clients are not VRF aware.
Typically the ISP/NSP does not supply PCsService stops somewhere.. next we need to guarantee his PC always works!
Do you know where the temperature sensor is? I'm trying to figure out if this is reliable or not.accurate voltage and temperature monitoring (awesome!)
Not sure what your setup is, but have you considered checking whether your billing system supports NetFlow?feature request : Umetered Content for PPPoE . 'Unmetered Content' services aren't counted against your monthly download inclusion . added to feature request page . just vote for it
I never said I was opposed to this...There's a few things that need to be v6'ed before hotspot can run , Simple queues off the top of my headSo if it was unclear by my previous post: I hereby voice my support of this thread and the request to add IPv6 support to the hotspot.
No currently we have no plans to work with non IPv4/IPv6/PPPoE traffic as in 95% of situation it is used inside the local network and doesn't cope with any changes (such as limitation).
After some thought I have realised that is not possible since you can't set an interface as an item in a queue tree.I think there may be a way around this by having a 3 tiered queue tree, the bottom layer with my match rule, the middle layer with my interfaces and the top layer with the limit.
You must have missed the part where I said I was lazyHi,
you can make pools like:
Well partly because I am lazy but also because if I am throwing rather large pools (ie /22 or larger) at my LNS it starts to become unmanageable to simply exclude the boundary addresses.so why not just exclude x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 from the pool?