Re: [j-nsp] interoperation between MSTP and old STP
Ben Dale wrote: I have several EX4200 switches with redundant links, all are running MSTP with a couple of MSTIs. If I include an older switch which can only run old-fashioned STP, will they interoperate and still keep the topology loop-free? What if it can run STP and RSTP, but not MSTP? They will interoperate, however there are key differences to be aware of: - STP/RSTP forms topology with STP bridges regardless of whether correct VLANs are trunked on ports - this can mean that topologies may form that isolate VLAN segments if you haven't configured trunked ports correctly on all links - STP/RSTP bridges will treat an MSTP network (regardless of how many switches it contains) as single contiguous bridge, so you may find that the ports that block in your RSTP network aren't quite where you expected them to be when simply counting the radius from the root bridge. Ben, thank you for your explanation. A link to some good documentation is also appreciated. TIA for any input. I highly recommend Petr Lapukhov's work here: http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2010/02/22/understanding-mstp/ I remember reading it when I set up MSTP for the first time, but I skipped the multi-region part of if. And the legacy STP link should look to MSTP switches as a foreign region, from what I was told. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:suda...@sibptus.tomsk.ru ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Quick way to Shift MPLS traffic away from an interface
Hello, What is the quick way to shift LSP traffic from an interface after increasing the igp metric? question: - What command can I use to find all lsp traversing the iface and a good way to clear them? I am assuming I would need to run clear mpls optimize-aggressive on the lsp's on that particular router only? Is my understanding correct? - Is it a good idea to turn on optimize-aggressive? Any best practices or pointers would be appreciated! -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Quick way to Shift MPLS traffic away from an interface
Hi Tim, If you are using LDP then traffic will automatically switch to follow the IGP. No clearing of LSPs required. Regards, Dave On 21 May 2015 18:49, tim tiriche tim.tiri...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, What is the quick way to shift LSP traffic from an interface after increasing the igp metric? question: - What command can I use to find all lsp traversing the iface and a good way to clear them? I am assuming I would need to run clear mpls optimize-aggressive on the lsp's on that particular router only? Is my understanding correct? - Is it a good idea to turn on optimize-aggressive? Any best practices or pointers would be appreciated! -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JTAC Recommended Junos Software Versions Old?
Hi Adam, Apologies for the delay, I have just run your search and have the below: Narrow Search By [image: Down Arrow] Resolved In Fixed in 12.3R8(86) Fixed in between(285) Fixed in 13.3R6(128) Fixed later (382) Unresolved(122) [image: Down Arrow] Status Closed(500+) Open(293) [image: Down Arrow] Severity Critical(59) Major(500+) Minor(218) It must be an account level problem, I'd get in touch with your local SE, or have a chat with David Bell as he'll have used that feature in the past. Cheers, Graham Graham Brown Twitter - @mountainrescuer https://twitter.com/#!/mountainrescuer LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamcbrown On 13 May 2015 at 21:59, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Graham Brown Sent: 13 May 2015 01:56 Colton, Read the release notes for the version you are going to for any changes which may have been introduced. Further to that, you can use the PR search tool at https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prsearch and enter the current Junos version, platform currently being used and the version you intend to go to. This will display bugs resolved and outstanding. From the above, you can make an informed decision on whether there are any showstoppers, you can also run a POC internally to test critical features. HTH, Graham Hi Graham, For me if I click on the search button nothing happens. Was trying to search for MX 12.3R8 to 13.3R6 Is it something with my account? adam -- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com -- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Child process error message
Again the issue occurs. Finding the flowd_hm process is high and router is consuming lot of memory. rt@FAZJ2320R-1 show system processes extensive last pid: 2625; load averages: 0.19, 0.18, 0.17 up 0+06:20:14 20:08:08 123 processes: 4 running, 102 sleeping, 17 waiting Mem: 222M Active, 96M Inact, 570M Wired, 72M Cache, 69M Buf, 32M Free Swap: PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPU COMMAND 11 root1 171 52 0K12K RUN254:41 83.11% idle 1183 root1 1030 638M 459M RUN 88:05 12.99% flowd_hm 1201 root1 40 101M 81228K kqread 17:34 0.05% rpd 12 root1 -40 -159 0K12K WAIT 2:17 0.00% swi2: net 13 root1 -20 -139 0K12K RUN 2:13 0.00% swi7: clock sio 931 root1 960 4680K 2876K select 1:53 0.00% eventd Running junos 11.4R10.3. Warm Regards, Thiyagarajan B On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:13 PM, thiyagarajan b bn.thiyagara...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Abhi, Junos upgrade was done two weeks back and now suddenly it throws,error like this. Moreover I have upgraded the RAM to 1G before upgrading. I have lost the access, I would check the command output and respond. Warm regards, Thiyagarajan B. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Abhi vyaaghrah-...@yahoo.com wrote: doesnt look like hardware nothing special on the j-series just pc motherboard. Did you check your router is using more memory after upgrade. Check the swap space under run show system process extensive regards abhijeet.c On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:57 PM, thiyagarajan b bn.thiyagara...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Abhi for your prompt response, I tried rebooting the device twice but no positive result, this device was running in junos9.0 and recently upgrade to 11.4. Would you suspect any bug or something, or its a hardware error.?/... Any suggestions? Warm Regards, Thiyagarajan B. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Abhi vyaaghrah-...@yahoo.com wrote: on free bsd if i am correct then inetd should be responsible for invoking the icmp child task; looks something is wrong in the kernel. Any change you did on the device? You can try restarting inetd if it permits with root privilege. regards abhijeet.c On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:40 PM, thiyagarajan b bn.thiyagara...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I am running Junos 11.4R10 in a J2320 router and getting Could not create Child process error message whenever ping is initiated from the router. Please help to resolve. Warm regards, Thiyagarajan B. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Quick way to Shift MPLS traffic away from an interface
Hi, I assume that you are talking for RSVP signaled LSPs. clear mpls optimize aggressive-optimize - will work only on the ingress PE. There are some scripts that you can use to find out what LSPs are transiting particular interface - like this one script http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Show-lsp-interface.slax. You can use clear rsvp session to force all transit LSPs to reoptimze after you increase the metric on the router you want to steer the traffic away. This could cause some traffic loss, but you don't need to go on every ingress PE to run clear mpls optimize. You can try to script it and run it on all PEs. Ivan, On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Dave Bell m...@geordish.org wrote: Hi Tim, If you are using LDP then traffic will automatically switch to follow the IGP. No clearing of LSPs required. Regards, Dave On 21 May 2015 18:49, tim tiriche tim.tiri...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, What is the quick way to shift LSP traffic from an interface after increasing the igp metric? question: - What command can I use to find all lsp traversing the iface and a good way to clear them? I am assuming I would need to run clear mpls optimize-aggressive on the lsp's on that particular router only? Is my understanding correct? - Is it a good idea to turn on optimize-aggressive? Any best practices or pointers would be appreciated! -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Best Regards! Ivan Ivanov ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Fwd: Quick way to Shift MPLS traffic away from an interface
Hello, What is the quick way to shift LSP traffic from an interface after increasing the igp metric? question: - What command can I use to find all lsp traversing the iface and a good way to clear them? I am assuming I would need to run clear mpls optimize-aggressive on the lsp's on that particular router only? Is my understanding correct? - Is it a good idea to turn on optimize-aggressive? Any best practices or pointers would be appreciated! -Tim ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Distributed PPM and LACP always goes into Queue 3. host-outbound-traffic knob has no effect -- bug?
Hello, Yes I've seen and confirmed this behavior a while back as well. If you ask I'm sure you'll be told this is not a bug and would require a feature request to change. See: http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.2/topics/reference/general/hw-cos-default-re-queues-reference-cos-config-guide.html For all protocol packets sent to queue 3 over a VLAN-taggedinterface, the software sets the 802.1p bits to 110. However, whenprotocol packets such as BFD are handled by the Packet ForwardingEngine, the software sets the 802.1p bits to 000. As you can see on top of putting all packets in queue 3, the pbits aren't even marked correctly :( Serge From: Huan Pham drie.huanp...@gmail.com To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:22 PM Subject: [j-nsp] Distributed PPM and LACP always goes into Queue 3. host-outbound-traffic knob has no effect -- bug? Hi list, I've tested in the lab and confirm that distributed PPM (e.g. one hop BFD) and LACP on MX does not honour host-outbound-traffic class of service nor outbound RE-reclassificaiton filter. This traffic always gets into queue 3. Depending on your design, this behaviour could be a problem, especially if your queue 3 is not designed for critical traffic. Is is a bug? Is there any way to move this control traffic to a different queue? Thanks very much in advance. Huan ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
