I think the main story here is: Offer both/different versions!
Once the content is there it should be very little effort to render
multiple different outputs.
In the days of ancient past you could just convert each section/page of
the website (including Release Notes) into a PDF (documentation
Hi,
While it sometimes works to let 25G transceivers run at 10G (depending
on Transceiver and Device(s)) i think in this case you will need a
different transceiver.
See e.g. HCT for reference:
https://apps.juniper.net/hct/product/?prd=QFX5200-32C
the PSM only lists 25 and 100 as being supp
Am 25.10.2023 um 14:25 schrieb Aaron1:
Years ago I had to get a license to make my 10g interfaces work on my MX104
If we are going into the HW direction and not features. Yes, that is
correct MX104 had some Port based licensing.
There was also MX5 -> MX10 -> MX40 -> MX80
And some not so enfo
Am 25.10.2023 um 11:57 schrieb Xavier Beaudouin via juniper-nsp:
So there are a couple of enforced licenses even on MX ... and they have
always been enforced. Subscriber MGMT is one of these features.
Well I remember wanted to use dhcp server on a MX204 for a local lan used
only...
for local a
Am 25.10.2023 um 08:01 schrieb Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 22:21, Aaron Gould via juniper-nsp
wrote:
My MX304 trial license expired last night, after rebooting the MX304,
various protocols no longer work. This seems more than just
honor-based... ospf, ldp, etc, no longer
Hi,
On 11.09.2023 19:55, Tom Beecher wrote:
Which in theory opens a new attack vector for the future.
What is the attack vector you foresee for a route sitting as hidden with
the potentially offending attributes stripped off?
It is theoretical, but if you do $something with a prefix and
Hi,
Am 30.08.2023 um 18:09 schrieb heasley via juniper-nsp:
Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:42:41PM -0700, David Sinn via juniper-nsp:
A network I operate is going with:
bgp-error-tolerance {
malformed-route-limit 0;
}
The thoughts being that there is no real reason to
Hi,
Its been age since we needed to convert one of them.
AFAIR all 3600 Nodes can be converted. The bigger Interconnect Node had
no option for that.
They state a couple of warnings and pre requisites in the documentation:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/qfx3000-g-de
Hi,
If you have any active support contract or a contact to an SE person
they typically can provide access to old and no longer listed releases
on demand as they do archive them internally. We recently had to request
some 14.X code for a complicated VC upgrade procedure involving a failed
mem
Hi,
I doubt that BGP Flow Spec is systested or supported on any QFX5k platform.
Feature Explorer (while not perfect :)) does support me in that
thinking:
https://apps.juniper.net/feature-explorer/parent-feature-info.html?pFKey=1541&pFName=BGP+Flow+Specification
regards
Tobias
___
Hi,
On 22.10.2021 08:42, Chen Jiang via juniper-nsp wrote:
I see there are 2 download links for vMX, one is vMX, one is vMX
evaluation.
What's the difference between the two?
On Paper the Eval is for public Evals
(https://www.juniper.net/us/en/dm/vmx-trial-download.html) and the
regular Do
Hi,
On 15.07.2021 22:46, Randy Bush via juniper-nsp wrote:
Good point! TSB16735 says last version of Junos to support SCB-MX960 is 16.2
Junos 17.3R3-S10
Junos 18.4R2-S5
Junos 19.3R3-S2
Junos 19.4R3-S3
so which steps to get from 14 to 16.2? 15.x 16.2?
https://support.juniper.net/support/eo
Hi,
MX204 has some limitations in terms of pps rates for smaller packet
sizes if inline-flow is configured compared to e.g. MX10003 not only but
also related to the pfe/fabric layout (no fabric in 204). So even if
they are the same pfe they might behave differently.
The details are not publi
Hi,
On 30.04.2021 23:21, Ross Halliday wrote:
Do FS QSFP+ breakout DACs and AOCs work on this platform? Is there some magic
sauce firmware I'm too daft to find?
We had some troubles in 40G and 100G DACs on MX204 and MX10003. e.g. 40G
DAC worked in $old versions and suddenly stopped in $newe
e on that
platforms or in your release.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ntrol;
no-auto-negotiation;
speed 1g;
}
Not sure if the Flow Control stuff was mandatory, but without the
no-auto-negotation the link was not useable. It might also help to check
autoneg settings on the other end (if you have access).
--
Kind Regards
Tobias He
recommendation you would have to buy a service which analyzes you
configs and cross checks PRs.
But in reality nothing much has changed, even before the rename the
recommendation was not very strong anyway, just a general guideline.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
_
ec was a
good thing, because you could keep the announcement active as long as the
attack lasted.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi,
On 14.06.2020 10:50, Robert Hass wrote:
I have old MX80 running 10.4R14.2.
I would like to upgrade it to 18.4R.
But what upgrade I should use ?
10.4R -> 15.1R and to 18.4R ?
There are probably official upgrade pathes taking a dozen intermediate
steps (three LTS releases at a time or some
Hi,
On 12.06.2020 20:39, Chris Adams wrote:
Is anybody using DAC cables on MX routers? We have a customer with an
MX10003 connected to EX4600 switches with 40G DAC cables (Juniper parts,
not third-party). Upon upgrading the router JUNOS to 18.2R3-S3, none of
the interfaces with a DAC cable wou
method of pulling it made no
difference.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
same time.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
PFE anyway ;)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
n
transceivers and the box trying to be smart and mess up your ports. I think you
cannot easily do that on the MPC7
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
link is pretty "slow"
and already tasked with lots of other things which it struggles with at times ;)
--
regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ly understand what is going on, but well it is what it is ;)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
X104 as AD.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi,
On 12.04.2019 15:34, Aaron Gould wrote:
Can I do Fusion using vMX and vQFX ? Will it work?
Leaving aside the use case and what you would actually want/could to do with it
this will not work.
vQFX is basically QFX10k and QFX10k can not be used as Sat in any Fusion
deployment (it can be A
uniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/understanding_software_licenses.html#jd0e690
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ges in the configured
size of the flow table initiates an automatic reboot of the FPC, and we recommend that
you run this command in a maintenance window."
Whatever this means for now ;)
I kind of remember that we changed that without reboot on 16.x and 17.x code on
some routers.
--
Kind Regards
packets are actually a typical
use case or not ;)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
MPLS
Data Plane. As there is no 4PE you either need to do v4 in MPLS VPN/VRF or run
v4 and v6 Control plane in parallel to get v4 across.
There is no v6 RSVP yet, but you might get your TE needs from SR/Spring.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
junipe
On 14.08.2018 08:34, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 14/Aug/18 08:26, Gert Doering wrote:
Mailman claims "there isn't yet", but if Jared would add one, I'd
subscribe :-)
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/
As would I...
+1
--
regards
Tobias
___
juni
ed redundancy in most setups. But
that is just me ;)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi,
On 17.07.2018 16:24, Richard McGovern wrote:
So, the original EX CLI and newer ELS based CLI are 100% based upon hardware
platform in use, and not SW release, and do not BREAK anything from working.
You cannot change from one CLI to the other via Junos SW code release changes.
This CLI
t to L3VPN peers.
Our workaround back in the day was a BGP Session between inet.0 and vpn.inet.0
via lt- interface + BGP Policy to rewrite next-hop directly to inet.0. This way
the routes are exchanged via the lt- but forwarding is done directly. Not sure
if that is feasible/applicable f
confirm my assumption (hence no speed difference between midplanes for MPC7 and
only 480G in 3+0)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
SCB* with 2+1 and Linerate for MPC7 will be SCBE3.
But hey, your version would make more sense but all my documents and
information since the release of MPC7 say otherwise.
On the other hand there are not many customers in DE who would/should know
better :)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
edundancy and pave the way for future MPC)
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
hit one of these corner case situations that nobody
thought about and nobody ever encountered and nobody ever asked about (at least
if you ask jtac :))
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.
stats
database)."
Just another Junos log message you could put into your syslog message filter
which probably already is a mile long.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ybe you can
use rib-groups or other leaking methods for that direction.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ead of SCB. Just asking because SCBE2 is
supported starting from 13.something and does not work in 12.3
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
: L3 to the rack switch with BGP and MPLS on
top. Then over that implement your standard MPLS services for L2.
EVPN should come to the QFX5100 at some point. So maybe check with your SE
about a time frame and maybe beta builds.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
rate port price.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
one can configure RAs on Juniper gear
(besides from VRRPv6) which uses/announces smaller prefixes than /64.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
slots are enabled, but thats the way their business goes.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
hink it should work with the iw interfaces as well. I might have tried that
as well in labs but i can not remember that for sure.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi,
Am 04.02.2014 04:25, schrieb Bikram Singh:
>> There might be a couple of alternate solutions coming to mind:
>> 1. move all internet Routes to the CE1 table and use static routes to point
>> back at the VRF with next-table from inet.0 which will not really scale
>> beyond a single l3vpn.
>>
Hi,
I am trying to wrap my head around a (seemingly) simple l3VPN Setup with
internet access. I am labing this up right now and got stuck.
The setup is very simple:
CE1 -- PE1 -- PE2 -- CE2
We have a l3VPN between CE1 und CE2, routes are exchanged and all routes from
CE1 are seen by CE2 and
0 percent
> Kernel 1 percent
> Interrupt 0 percent
> Idle 98 percent
> Model RE-2.0
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi,
Am 06.06.2013 14:30, schrieb Saku Ytti:
> On (2013-06-06 18:40 +0800), Joe Wooller wrote:
>
>> This is basically what is happening (i think) the PFE becomes unusable until
>> you reboot. Is there a way to see what ports are on what PFE?
>
> I'm not familiar with EX4550, I would expect it's
> 1) Don't carry this route (X/22) in your backbone. (you can set
> next-hop-self, etc). It'll save other security concerns and possible free
> transit you're giving away to others.
> 2) Filter any traffic within to the AMS-IX exchange fabric (again, X/22),
> except f
Hi,
Am 08.03.2013 16:33, schrieb Jonas Frey (Probe Networks):
> did anyone ever notice problems with wrong/changed SNMP ifIndex settings
> after ISSU?
> We ISSU upgraded a MX from 10.4R9.2 to 11.4R7.5 and after this some of
> the ifIndex changed.
We had that a couple of time with the MX series (w
Hi,
Am 31.01.2013 10:47, schrieb Huan Pham:
> Upstream or Downstream is from your perspective. RTG does not run between
> devices, so it does not care if the redundant paths are connected to upstream
> or downstream!! All it cares is that if the primary link is up, the the SW
> blocks all traff
Hi,
Am 31.01.2013 03:06, schrieb Huan Pham:
> The simplest solution is redundant trunk group (RTG). Pls check if your
> switches facing customer support it.
>
> On Cisco, i think you can use "interface backup" command to do the same.
>
> The down side with these solutions is customers have to
Hi,
Am 10.01.2013 14:03, schrieb Paul Stewart:
> Per port ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting with burst)
>
> Per VLAN ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting on a per VLAN
> basis with burst)
As you mentioned this could be the problem or showstopper.
We have not yet
Hi,
Am 14.08.2012 22:27, schrieb Jonathan Lassoff:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tobias Heister
> wrote:
>> Am 14.08.2012 22:09, schrieb Jonathan Lassoff:
>>> A dynamic routing protocol and BFD would be see this right away and
>>> move traffic, but this woul
sions (from 8.0 to 10.4) but this of course may have been
coincidence.
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
ne for several weeks and the arp entry had low
timeout values left but never expired.
After clearing the route the arp entry vanished as expected.
I guess something keeps the arp entry from being deleted as long as there are
or were forwarding entries in the fib for it at any time.
--
Kind
eed to add anything ipv6 or bgp related
[1] http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/design-guides/8020013-en.pdf
--
Kind Regards
Tobias Heister
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Am 24.07.2012 07:21, schrieb Antti Ristimäki:
> On 2012-07-23 16:22, Tobias Heister wrote:
>> The document about scaling with labeled bgp [2] has a section about 6PE but
>> it does not help much. First of all the method explained to get interface
>> routes to inet6.3 does
Am 23.07.2012 16:28, schrieb Per Granath:
>> Am 23.07.2012 16:14, schrieb Per Granath:
>>> Is there any reason why you are not running LDP-tunneling to/from R4/R8
>> and R10?
>>
>> This woule be a viable solution, but as mentioned per definition it is not
>> allowed (or for a better term wanted) in
Am 23.07.2012 16:14, schrieb Per Granath:
> Is there any reason why you are not running LDP-tunneling to/from R4/R8 and
> R10?
This woule be a viable solution, but as mentioned per definition it is not
allowed (or for a better term wanted) in this scenario to extend ldp beyond 4,
8 and 5 (not e
Dear All,
I am trying to wrap my head around this for some days now and it seems I am
stuck. Sorry for the lengthy post, bit I tried to give as much information as
possible.
I have 6 routers setup like this, currently all are logical-systems on a
MX80-48T running 10.4R9 in our lab.
/--- 9 --
66 matches
Mail list logo