Re: [j-nsp] EOMPLS between 10G subinterface and GE subinterface between two 7600 with Juniper MX480 as CE1
Hello, Here is a ping result with monitor traffic activated on xe-3/1/0. I Ping the other CE and it seems that the ping leaves the Juniper interface: I also create an extended access list on CE2 and debub ip packet detail 199 #sh ip access-lists 199 Extended IP access list 199 10 permit icmp host 150.1.1.2 host 150.1.1.1 20 permit icmp host 150.1.1.1 host 150.1.1.2 (6 matches) The ICMP echo requests from Juniper does not arrive at Cisco and also I ping from Cisco CE2 to Juniper CE1 and i have encapsulation failed because it dows not learn arp from Juniper: > monitor traffic interface xe-3/1/0 extensive Address resolution is ON. Use to avoid any reverse lookup delay. Address resolution timeout is 4s. Listening on xe-3/1/0, capture size 1514 bytes 09:49:41.426537 Out Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, value: Ethernet (14) Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, value: 193 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, value: 79 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, value: 32767 -original packet- Reverse lookup for 150.1.1.1 failed (check DNS reachability). Other reverse lookup failures will not be reported. Use to avoid reverse lookups on IP addresses. 0:21:59:a7:c4:30 > 0:16:9c:6d:42:80, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 999, p 0, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 21993, offset 0, flags [none], proto: ICMP (1), length: 84) 150.1.1.2 > 150.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 58212, seq 69, length 64 09:49:42.427316 Out Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, value: Ethernet (14) Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, value: 193 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, value: 79 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, value: 32767 -original packet- 0:21:59:a7:c4:30 > 0:16:9c:6d:42:80, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 999, p 0, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22035, offset 0, flags [none], proto: ICMP (1), length: 84) 150.1.1.2 > 150.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 58212, seq 70, length 64 09:49:43.428108 Out Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, value: Ethernet (14) Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, value: 193 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, value: 79 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, value: 32767 -original packet- 0:21:59:a7:c4:30 > 0:16:9c:6d:42:80, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 999, p 0, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22038, offset 0, flags [none], proto: ICMP (1), length: 84) 150.1.1.2 > 150.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 58212, seq 71, length 64 09:49:44.428895 Out Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, value: Ethernet (14) Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, value: 193 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, value: 79 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, value: 32767 -original packet- 0:21:59:a7:c4:30 > 0:16:9c:6d:42:80, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 999, p 0, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22042, offset 0, flags [none], proto: ICMP (1), length: 84) 150.1.1.2 > 150.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 58212, seq 72, length 64 09:49:45.429691 Out Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, value: Ethernet (14) Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, value: 193 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, value: 79 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, value: 32767 -original packet- 0:21:59:a7:c4:30 > 0:16:9c:6d:42:80, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 999, p 0, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22044, offset 0, flags [none], proto: ICMP (1), length: 84) 150.1.1.2 > 150.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 58212, seq 73, length 64 09:49:46.430487 Out Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Ext
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
On Friday 19 February 2010 11:06:48 am Daniel Roesen wrote: > It's just product management. Just like the BGP route > reflection dongle key. JNPR knows those boxes are very > interesting for "small/mid BGP demand" networks as > central route reflectors, so they squeeze some more > money out of these deployments. Unfortunately, folks NOT > using the routers in such a setup but occasionally need > some route reflection are... "colateral damage". Been > there, still suffering from that. Legacy JUNOS fans will be happy to have, well, JUNOS, on the J-series (and the EX-series) after coming from the M/T- series platforms. However, if you don't mind the IOS cruft and are really focusing on core features and hardware performance, the Cisco 7201 is a decent platform when pitched against the J2320, and in some cases, even the J4350. I've been able to do some 950Mbps through them @ 90% CPU utilization without dropping a packet. You'd miss the JUNOS niceties, but it's a capable box worth considering if you find yourself stuck in this category. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX series needs a special license for BGP?
Yes - that's correct. Junos will complain about not having the license but BGP will still work, same deal on the J series not having the route reflector license, still works just complains :) Sent from my iPhone On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:05 PM, "TCIS List Acct" wrote: > Hrmm -- from what I've read, it seems the EX series DOES need a > license for BGP, > but the J-series does not, unless you need the route-reflector > functionality. > > Am I correct or ? > > Dan Farrell wrote: >> If I'm not mistaken I got an EX3200-24T for around $3k (give or >> take) and I have BGP peering on it. >> >> Dan Farrell >> da...@appliedi.net >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: TCIS List Acct [mailto:lista...@tulsaconnect.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM >> To: Patrik Olsson >> Cc: Dan Farrell; juniper-nsp >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router >> >> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the >> EX3200 >> series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. >> >> --Mike > > --Mike > ___ > 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
[j-nsp] EX series needs a special license for BGP?
Hrmm -- from what I've read, it seems the EX series DOES need a license for BGP, but the J-series does not, unless you need the route-reflector functionality. Am I correct or ? Dan Farrell wrote: If I'm not mistaken I got an EX3200-24T for around $3k (give or take) and I have BGP peering on it. Dan Farrell da...@appliedi.net -Original Message- From: TCIS List Acct [mailto:lista...@tulsaconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM To: Patrik Olsson Cc: Dan Farrell; juniper-nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. --Mike --Mike ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:48:41AM -0500, Joe Goldberg wrote: > I would be very interested though if the J2320 can take more than 1GB > of RAM now. That would be news to me. Routing Engine status: ... DRAM 3811 MB Memory utilization 25 percent ... Model RE-J2320-2000 Officially "supported" though are only 2GB nowadays, as far as I'm aware. So: kids, do try this only at home (just like me). :-) I cannot say wether this (4x1G) runs stable, but I saw 2G (2x1G) and 2.5G (2x1G + 2x256M) J2320 running fine for many months with multiple full BGP tables. It's just product management. Just like the BGP route reflection dongle key. JNPR knows those boxes are very interesting for "small/mid BGP demand" networks as central route reflectors, so they squeeze some more money out of these deployments. Unfortunately, folks NOT using the routers in such a setup but occasionally need some route reflection are... "colateral damage". Been there, still suffering from that. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- d...@ircnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] RFC2544 on Juniper MX960 10G ports
Yes what you see is correct behavior (for those MX DPCs). I doubt it's a cell size issue or you would see a saw-tooth. Instead what you can infer is that each of the 4 PFE's are limited to the packets-per-second they can process depending on the transport type involved. I.E. VPLS is really bad at low packet sizes but pure L3 is good. -J Scott On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:08 PM, OBrien, Will wrote: > We have been running 10G R cards exclusively in our pair of MX960s - so far > we have had no issues with vpn tunnels coming in/out and we have many of > them. We don't run voip over that particular connection either. In fact, > we've really seen no problems with traffic going through them at all. We do > run them exclusively at the edge of our network as border routers for I1 and > I2 traffic. > > Typical I1 load is near a Gb and I2 usually has a few. > > Will > > On Feb 18, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Serge Vautour wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > We recently used a traffic generator to run RFC2544 tests against a > Juniper MX960. The 1G ports work flawlessly. 0% packet loss at all frame > sizes. > > > > The 10G ports (4x10G "R" card) didn't do as well. They dropped up to 25% > packets with certain small frames (ex: 70 byte frames). The packet loss goes > away almost completely for frames larger than 100 bytes. Our SE tells us > this is normal and is due to how the MX chops the frames up into 64 byte > cells inside the PFE. The 4x10G cards have 4 separate PFEs (1 per 10G port) > and each of them has 10G of bandwidth. 10G of small frames essentially > creates more than 10G of traffic inside the PFE. That explanation may not be > 100% correct but I think it paints the right picture. > > > > Now the questions. Is this a problem on production networks with real > world traffic? What about on VPN networks with alot of small frames like > VoIP? Has anyone seen this problem creep it's head in production? > > > > It seems very unlikely to me that a maxed 10Gbps link would carry 7.5Gbps > of frame sizes less than 100 byte. I would expect larger frames to use up > the majority of the bandwidth. Can anyone correlate this with real world > traffic? > > > > As usual, the help received on this distribution list is invaluable. > Thanks in advance to anyone who replies. > > > > Serge > > > > > > __ > > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your > favourite sites. Download it now > > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. > > ___ > > 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 > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] RFC2544 on Juniper MX960 10G ports
We have been running 10G R cards exclusively in our pair of MX960s - so far we have had no issues with vpn tunnels coming in/out and we have many of them. We don't run voip over that particular connection either. In fact, we've really seen no problems with traffic going through them at all. We do run them exclusively at the edge of our network as border routers for I1 and I2 traffic. Typical I1 load is near a Gb and I2 usually has a few. Will On Feb 18, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Serge Vautour wrote: > Hello, > > We recently used a traffic generator to run RFC2544 tests against a Juniper > MX960. The 1G ports work flawlessly. 0% packet loss at all frame sizes. > > The 10G ports (4x10G "R" card) didn't do as well. They dropped up to 25% > packets with certain small frames (ex: 70 byte frames). The packet loss goes > away almost completely for frames larger than 100 bytes. Our SE tells us this > is normal and is due to how the MX chops the frames up into 64 byte cells > inside the PFE. The 4x10G cards have 4 separate PFEs (1 per 10G port) and > each of them has 10G of bandwidth. 10G of small frames essentially creates > more than 10G of traffic inside the PFE. That explanation may not be 100% > correct but I think it paints the right picture. > > Now the questions. Is this a problem on production networks with real world > traffic? What about on VPN networks with alot of small frames like VoIP? Has > anyone seen this problem creep it's head in production? > > It seems very unlikely to me that a maxed 10Gbps link would carry 7.5Gbps of > frame sizes less than 100 byte. I would expect larger frames to use up the > majority of the bandwidth. Can anyone correlate this with real world traffic? > > As usual, the help received on this distribution list is invaluable. Thanks > in advance to anyone who replies. > > Serge > > > __ > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your > favourite sites. Download it now > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. > ___ > 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
[j-nsp] RFC2544 on Juniper MX960 10G ports
Hello, We recently used a traffic generator to run RFC2544 tests against a Juniper MX960. The 1G ports work flawlessly. 0% packet loss at all frame sizes. The 10G ports (4x10G "R" card) didn't do as well. They dropped up to 25% packets with certain small frames (ex: 70 byte frames). The packet loss goes away almost completely for frames larger than 100 bytes. Our SE tells us this is normal and is due to how the MX chops the frames up into 64 byte cells inside the PFE. The 4x10G cards have 4 separate PFEs (1 per 10G port) and each of them has 10G of bandwidth. 10G of small frames essentially creates more than 10G of traffic inside the PFE. That explanation may not be 100% correct but I think it paints the right picture. Now the questions. Is this a problem on production networks with real world traffic? What about on VPN networks with alot of small frames like VoIP? Has anyone seen this problem creep it's head in production? It seems very unlikely to me that a maxed 10Gbps link would carry 7.5Gbps of frame sizes less than 100 byte. I would expect larger frames to use up the majority of the bandwidth. Can anyone correlate this with real world traffic? As usual, the help received on this distribution list is invaluable. Thanks in advance to anyone who replies. Serge __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
seems that what was once a useful source, the well has run dry. BGP need licencing!!! licencing and proprietry is Blue Box. I say get a grip & goodbye. Populate someone else's mailbox with ridiculous questions. I despair. unsubscribe me now. what gets to me is that these people get work so long and thanks for all the fish "and you won't hear me singing out these songs when I'm gone. so I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here" when I'm gone - phil ochs John Train - Original Message - From: "Florian Weimer" To: "Shane Short" Cc: "juniper-nsp" ; "Tore Anderson" Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router * Shane Short: I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series routers and simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the license is almost as much as the unit itself. what gives? As far as I can tell, everything you need to run a regular BGP router is there, even without the advanced BGP license. It's likely that you don't have to pay the additional licensing fee. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 ___ 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] query rpd scheduler slip,memory leak
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:39:00PM +0530, chandrasekaran iyer wrote: > Hi, > > what is rpd scheduler slip. how do we observe this? How do you observe it? Load any JUNOS produced in the last couple years and fire up some BGP, it won't take long. :) Feb 18 22:58:10 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 106056 usec kevent block Feb 18 22:58:40 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 112562 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:00:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 123676 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:00:30 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 114825 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:00:36 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 113041 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:01:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 132636 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:02:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 135565 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:02:51 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 108850 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:02:55 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 112137 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:03:00 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 100827 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:03:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 129836 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:04:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 134561 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:05:01 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 107300 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:05:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 134453 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:05:21 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 101315 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:06:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 135828 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:06:41 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 106647 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:07:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 128517 usec kevent block Feb 18 23:08:06 srx210 rpd[2490]: %DAEMON-3-RPD_SCHED_SLIP_KEVENT: 4 sec 133028 usec kevent block -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Op 18 feb 2010, om 17:13 heeft Morten Isaksen het volgende geschreven: > This looks a lot like the setup I am builing. I think you convinced me > to go with the J2320. > > What version of the OS are you running? 9.3R4.4. To paraphrase a regular here: the last real JUNOS for J-series, before the flow-based ones. Newer versions will run too (I've installed 10.something to see if it worked at all) but flow-based stuff gives me the creeps for this purpose. > Any problems with ipv6 on the router? None whatsoever. Runs absolutely fine with multiple full IPv6 tables. There may still be an IPv6 license for sale, but it is not needed to run IPv6 on the router (it is probably needed to get *supported* IPv6 to run on the router though). We use IS-IS as the IPv6 IGP which works fine too. The only thing that doesn't work, as has been reported here a few times by now, is route reflector capability. We tried it once, but it just doesn't work without the license. So we use OpenBGPD for that now :-) -- Niels Raijer ni...@fusix.nl http://fusix.nl ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
That would explain it-- my very shallow depth of Juniper knowledge started on the EX series :) -Shane On 19/02/2010, at 2:54 AM, Patrik Olsson wrote: > No BGP license of J series right? Only on EX? > I think route reflector demands license on Jseries! > > Patrik > > Shane Short wrote: >> I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. >> >> I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series routers >> and simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the license is almost >> as much as the unit itself. what gives? >> >> -Shane >> >> On 18/02/2010, at 11:28 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: >> >>> * TCIS List Acct >>> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. >>> There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, «Advanced BGP License for J-Series», which >>> almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what >>> exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, >>> though. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> -- >>> Tore Anderson >>> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ >>> Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 >>> ___ >>> 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 > > > -- > > //Patrik > > Webkom > http://www.webkom.se > > +46 (0)709 35 22 99 > +46 (0)8 559 26 488 > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
No BGP license of J series right? Only on EX? I think route reflector demands license on Jseries! Patrik Shane Short wrote: > I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. > > I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series routers and > simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the license is almost as > much as the unit itself. what gives? > > -Shane > > On 18/02/2010, at 11:28 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > >> * TCIS List Acct >> >>> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the >>> EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. >> There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, «Advanced BGP License for J-Series», which >> almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what >> exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, >> though. >> >> Best regards, >> -- >> Tore Anderson >> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ >> Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 >> ___ >> 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 -- //Patrik Webkom http://www.webkom.se +46 (0)709 35 22 99 +46 (0)8 559 26 488 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] non juniper SFP in MX(No virus check: scan engine not ready)
On Feb 18, 2010, at 2:08 AM, Georgios Vlachos wrote: Hello list, I know non juniper SFP work in MX but would you be worried if you they are not recognized at all by chassisd? Moreover show chassis hardware or pic-status does not list the SFPs at all. On the other hand the links come up and forward traffic with no apparent errors. Would you feel confident about it? l...@mx960_ lab# run show log chassisd| last . Feb 16 15:50:10 pic_copy_port_info:Got cable_type for FPC 0 PIC 2 port 6 cable num=0, str= We typically use vendor-endorsed SFPs for production / core / critical links. If need to cut costs on a project, we'll use 3rd party modules for interfaces servicing non-critical stuff (like local servers, secondary systems, testing networks, etc). While the cost difference isn't huge, sometimes a few hundred dollars could mean getting a project approved in my environment. -- Brad Fleming ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
The BGP License is for Route reflectors only. All other BGP functions work. I have 17 or so J2350's running BGP with no extra licensing. They are only peered with Internet2 (26,000 in RIB), so I can't comment on usability for multiple Internet peers. Jensen Tyler Network Engineer Fiberutilities Group, LLC -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Shane Short Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:42 AM To: Tore Anderson Cc: juniper-nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series routers and simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the license is almost as much as the unit itself. what gives? -Shane On 18/02/2010, at 11:28 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * TCIS List Acct > >> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the >> EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. > > There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, , which > almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what > exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, > though. > > Best regards, > -- > Tore Anderson > Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ > Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 > ___ > 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
As stated before, The "Advanced BGP Licence" is for Route-Reflector capability. The system does full i/eBGP out-of-the-box (normal JunOS). Also look at the SRX series - which are basically "pumped up J's" running the virtually same code. (and yes, you can kick an SRX into "packet mode") - Chris. On 2010-02-18, at 8:41 AM, Shane Short wrote: > I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. > > I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series routers and > simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the license is almost as > much as the unit itself. what gives? > > -Shane > > On 18/02/2010, at 11:28 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > >> * TCIS List Acct >> >>> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the >>> EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. >> >> There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, «Advanced BGP License for J-Series», which >> almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what >> exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, >> though. >> >> Best regards, >> -- >> Tore Anderson >> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ >> Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 >> ___ >> 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Shane Short: > >> I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. >> >> I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series >> routers and simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the >> license is almost as much as the unit itself. what gives? > > As far as I can tell, everything you need to run a regular BGP router > is there, even without the advanced BGP license. It's likely that you > don't have to pay the additional licensing fee. I think you are correct. I believe the advanced BGP license is only needed if the router will be configured as a route reflector. --Stacy ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
On Thursday 18 February 2010 11:41:33 pm Shane Short wrote: > I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. > > I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some > J series routers and simply haven't, because as you > said-- the price of the license is almost as much as the > unit itself. what gives? This is one of the reasons it's been easier to choose Cisco's 7201 for route reflector purposes. This feature comes stock in IOS, and we don't need to pay extra for it. Besides, IOS, in its madness, occupies a much smaller memory footprint on this 2GB DRAM unit. Having said that, due to the way Juniper implement EoMPLS l2vpn's (with a BGP control plane), having a J6350 is handy in a largely-Juniper network. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
* Shane Short: > I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. > > I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series > routers and simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the > license is almost as much as the unit itself. what gives? As far as I can tell, everything you need to run a regular BGP router is there, even without the advanced BGP license. It's likely that you don't have to pay the additional licensing fee. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
I think the BGP licensing for JunOS is quite ridiculous.. I've been looking at upgrading our small network to some J series routers and simply haven't, because as you said-- the price of the license is almost as much as the unit itself. what gives? -Shane On 18/02/2010, at 11:28 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * TCIS List Acct > >> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the >> EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. > > There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, «Advanced BGP License for J-Series», which > almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what > exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, > though. > > Best regards, > -- > Tore Anderson > Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ > Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 > ___ > 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] J2320 as BGP router
This looks a lot like the setup I am builing. I think you convinced me to go with the J2320. What version of the OS are you running? Any problems with ipv6 on the router? /Morten On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Niels Raijer wrote: > Op 18 feb 2010, om 10:52 heeft Morten Isaksen het volgende geschreven: > >> As far as I am told it is 2 Gig now. Juniper has just not updated the >> spec on the web. > > Correct, a J2320 can have 2 GB of RAM: > > ni...@nikhef-1> show chassis routing-engine > Routing Engine status: > Temperature 39 degrees C / 102 degrees F > CPU temperature 40 degrees C / 104 degrees F > DRAM 2048 MB > Memory utilization 52 percent > CPU utilization: > User 0 percent > Real-time threads 21 percent > Kernel 2 percent > Idle 77 percent > Model RE-J2320-2000 > > Other than that, this router (along with another J2320 router with 2 GB RAM, > and soon to be three more) holds just over a million routes just fine: > > Table Tot Paths Act Paths Suppressed History Damp State > Pending > inet.0 995511 308800 0 0 0 > 0 > inet6.0 10670 2594 0 0 0 > 0 > > It has three and a half full IPv4 tables and three full IPv6 tables, and more > than enough memory to spare as you can see above. > > We normally run about 60 Mbps of IMIX through this box but we have seen times > where it exceeded 100 Mbps without any sweat at all. > -- > Niels Raijer > ni...@fusix.nl > http://fusix.nl > > > > > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Op 18 feb 2010, om 16:40 heeft Tore Anderson het volgende geschreven: >> Correct, a J2320 can have 2 GB of RAM: > > Did you upgrade it to 2 GB yourself? If so, it would be great if you > could share which RAM manufacturer and part number you used. Yes, we upgraded the RAM ourselves, for obvious reasons ;-) The web shop we ordered it from (a generic PC parts web shop) had the following description on the order: Product : Corsair Value Select - Memory - 512 MB - DIMM 184-pins - DDR - 400 MHz / PC3200 - CL2.5 - non-buffered - non-ECC Note that our network, although we have our own AS, we are a RIPE NCC member etc., is that of a hobby club -- we do not have an SLA to offer to our members. We have excellent experience with the J2320 used as full BGP routers with multiple transits but if you interpret any of my words as advice, please be sure to take into account that we do not run a commercial network on them. -- Niels Raijer ni...@fusix.nl http://fusix.nl ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Depends on how well the units are selling in the market at that time hehehe. They seem to be especially helpful with the EX series right now. Dan Farrell da...@appliedi.net -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:46 AM To: 'Tore Anderson'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: 'Niels Raijer' Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router So then comes the question of support - will Juniper support you if it's "non-standard"? ;) I don't know ... just curious... Paul -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:41 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Niels Raijer Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router * Niels Raijer > Correct, a J2320 can have 2 GB of RAM: Did you upgrade it to 2 GB yourself? If so, it would be great if you could share which RAM manufacturer and part number you used. The February price list says (like the web site) that the J2320-JH model ships with 1 GB of RAM. I can't see any 2 GB alternative either. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 ___ 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 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4877 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4877 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * TCIS List Acct > >> But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the >> EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. > > There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, «Advanced BGP License for J-Series», which > almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what > exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, > though. Route reflector support. -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
So then comes the question of support - will Juniper support you if it's "non-standard"? ;) I don't know ... just curious... Paul -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:41 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Niels Raijer Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router * Niels Raijer > Correct, a J2320 can have 2 GB of RAM: Did you upgrade it to 2 GB yourself? If so, it would be great if you could share which RAM manufacturer and part number you used. The February price list says (like the web site) that the J2320-JH model ships with 1 GB of RAM. I can't see any 2 GB alternative either. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 ___ 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] J2320 as BGP router
* Niels Raijer > Correct, a J2320 can have 2 GB of RAM: Did you upgrade it to 2 GB yourself? If so, it would be great if you could share which RAM manufacturer and part number you used. The February price list says (like the web site) that the J2320-JH model ships with 1 GB of RAM. I can't see any 2 GB alternative either. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
* TCIS List Acct > But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the > EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. There's also JX-BGP-ADV-LTU, «Advanced BGP License for J-Series», which almost equals the list price of the smallest J2320. I'm not sure what exactly would make a BGP setup advanced enough to require this license, though. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] query rpd scheduler slip,memory leak
There is a scheduler within RPD which gives different RPD tasks time to do processing, if RPD is busy doing a task and scheduler cannot allocate time to other tasks to do their job you see a scheduler slip. This can be for many varied reasons , from a HDD issue to some sw issue. Memory leak is usually a coding issue, where a block of memory is allocated for some task and somewhere it has not been freed. Troubleshooting mem leak again depends what type of leak you are having: RPD mem, PFE mem, kernel mem etc. HTH Aditya On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:09 AM, chandrasekaran iyer wrote: > Hi, > > what is rpd scheduler slip. how do we observe this? > > What is memory leak? how do we observe this in junos? > > -- > Thanks with regards > > Shekar.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] J2320 as BGP router
I am in the middle of pilot with this very configuration, J2320 with 2 transits with full routes. The box with 1GB of RAM was not able to handle it. We started to get weird performance issues and some random crashing and hanging due to the lack of memory. We are now evaluating a J4350 and it seems to be working very well. I would be very interested though if the J2320 can take more than 1GB of RAM now. That would be news to me. Thanks, Joe -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dan Farrell Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:30 AM To: Morten Isaksen; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router If you didn't need full routes you could go with the EX series for pretty cheap. Dan Farrell Applied Innovations Corp. da...@appliedi.net -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:37 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router Hi! I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small packets. I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. Can the J2320 handle this? -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ 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] EOMPLS between 10G subinterface and GE subinterface between two 7600 with Juniper MX480 as CE1
Couple of things:
1. When you ping from Juniper CE do you know where ping is getting dropped?
If you do monitor traffic on Juniper xe-3/1/0 do you see ping going out?
2. Can you please remove accounting and sampling on xe interface and then
try?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ioan Branet wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I have the following setup
> CE1(Juniper MX480) xe3/1/0.999 -Te7/3.999 PE1(Cisco 7600)PE2(Cisco
> 7600)Gi2/2.999---SVI 999(7600)CE2
>
> I configured EOMPLS between PE1 and PE2 and if I use Cisco 7600 as CE1 I am
> able to ping between CE1 and CE2
> If I use MX480 Juniper I cant ping between CE1 and CE2.
>
> Here is my config:
> CE1:
>
> show configuration interfaces xe-3/1/0
> description "** Link To PE1-Te7/3-EOMPLS **";
> vlan-tagging;
> link-mode full-duplex;
> gigether-options {
>no-auto-negotiation;
> }
> unit 999 {
>bandwidth 10g;
>vlan-id 999;
>family inet {
>accounting {
>source-class-usage {
>input;
>}
>}
>no-redirects;
>sampling {
>input;
>}
>address 150.1.1.2/30 {
>primary;
>preferred;
>}
>}
> }
>
>
> PE1:
>
> sh running-config interface te7/3
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 139 bytes
> !
> interface TenGigabitEthernet7/3
> description Link to CE1 - xe-3/1/0 for EoMPLS
> mtu 9216
> no ip address
> load-interval 30
> end
>
> sh running-config interface te7/3.999
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 116 bytes
> !
> interface TenGigabitEthernet7/3.999
> encapsulation dot1Q 999
> xconnect 2.2.2.2 encapsulation mpls
> end
>
>
> int lop0
> ip add 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255
>
> PE2:
> interface GigabitEthernet2/2
> description Link to CE2 for EoMPLS
> mtu 9216
> no ip address
>
> interface GigabitEthernet2/2.999
> description EOMPLS_TEST
> encapsulation dot1Q 999
> xconnect 1.1.1.1 encapsulation mpls
> end
>
> int loop0
> ip add 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255
>
> CE2:
>
> sh running-config interface gi2/2
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 633 bytes
> !
> interface GigabitEthernet2/2
> description Link to PE2
> switchport
> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 999
> switchport mode trunk
>
> interface Vlan999
> ip address 150.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
> end
>
> I have the EOMPLS circuit up but I cant ping between Juniper CE1 and Cisco
> CE2
>
> sh mpls l2transport vc detail
> Local interface: Gi2/2.999 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 999 up
> MPLS VC type is Eth VLAN, interworking type is Ethernet
> Destination address: 1.1.1.1, VC ID: , VC status: up
>Output interface: Vl894, imposed label stack {2419 5896}
>Preferred path: not configured
>Default path: active
>Next hop: x.x.x.x
> Create time: 00:00:06, last status change time: 00:00:06
> Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 1.1.1.1:0 up
>Targeted Hello: x.x.x.x(LDP Id) -> y.y.y.y
>MPLS VC labels: local 1684, remote 5896
>Group ID: local 0, remote 0
>MTU: local 9216, remote 9216
>Remote interface description:
> Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
> VC statistics:
>packet totals: receive 0, send 0
>byte totals: receive 0, send 0
>packet drops: receive 0, send 0
>
> PE1
> #show mpls l2transport vc detail
> Local interface: Te7/3.999 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 999 up
> MPLS VC type is Eth VLAN, interworking type is Ethernet
> Destination address: 2.2.2.2, VC ID: , VC status: up
>Output interface: Te4/3, imposed label stack {5673 1692}
>Preferred path: not configured
>Default path: active
>Next hop: x.x.x.x
> Create time: 00:00:06, last status change time: 00:00:06
> Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 2.2.2.2:0 up
>Targeted Hello: x.x.x.x(LDP Id) -> y.y.y.y
>MPLS VC labels: local 2083, remote 1692
>Group ID: local 0, remote 0
>MTU: local 9216, remote 9216
>
> Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
> VC statistics:
>packet totals: receive 2, send 0
>byte totals: receive 128, send 0
>packet drops: receive 0, send 0
>
> It seems that i send arp-reply from Juniper and the Juniper is learning arp
> from CE2:
> show arp no-resolve | match xe-3/1/0
> 00:16:9c:6d:42:80 150.1.1.1 xe-3/1/0.999 none
>
>
> Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext, In], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22
> Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, value: Ethernet (1)
> Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, value:
> Ethernet (14)
> Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, value: 193
> Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, value: 126
> Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, value: 32767
>-original packet-
>0:16:9c:6d:42:80 > Broadcast, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 64:
> vlan 999, p 0, ethertype ARP, arp who-has 150.1.1.2 tell 150.1.1.1
> 11:34:01.878596
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
If I'm not mistaken I got an EX3200-24T for around $3k (give or take) and I have BGP peering on it. Dan Farrell da...@appliedi.net -Original Message- From: TCIS List Acct [mailto:lista...@tulsaconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM To: Patrik Olsson Cc: Dan Farrell; juniper-nsp Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. --Mike __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
But don't you need the "advanced feature license" to do BGP on the EX3200 series? That license adds thousands to the cost.. --Mike ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Op 18 feb 2010, om 10:52 heeft Morten Isaksen het volgende geschreven: > As far as I am told it is 2 Gig now. Juniper has just not updated the > spec on the web. Correct, a J2320 can have 2 GB of RAM: ni...@nikhef-1> show chassis routing-engine Routing Engine status: Temperature 39 degrees C / 102 degrees F CPU temperature 40 degrees C / 104 degrees F DRAM 2048 MB Memory utilization 52 percent CPU utilization: User 0 percent Real-time threads 21 percent Kernel 2 percent Idle 77 percent Model RE-J2320-2000 Other than that, this router (along with another J2320 router with 2 GB RAM, and soon to be three more) holds just over a million routes just fine: Table Tot Paths Act Paths SuppressedHistory Damp StatePending inet.0995511 308800 0 0 0 0 inet6.010670 2594 0 0 0 0 It has three and a half full IPv4 tables and three full IPv6 tables, and more than enough memory to spare as you can see above. We normally run about 60 Mbps of IMIX through this box but we have seen times where it exceeded 100 Mbps without any sweat at all. -- Niels Raijer ni...@fusix.nl http://fusix.nl ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
If you actually only have one exit from you AS, you dont need the full tables. You can use local pref and make sure the ISPs upstream only announce a default route via BGP. But if you intend to reannounce the tables backwards or to other customer of your own downstream, I would go for J6350 aswell. 2 full feeds and about 1 Gbps capacity is what I have in a customers network I designed and implemented. Patrik Paul Stewart wrote: > Yes, but he's stated two transits so presumed that meant full tables X 2 > .. > > We're ordering a J6350 for this purpose to be safe... we were told that we > had to go J6350 to hold two full tables... > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dan Farrell > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:30 AM > To: Morten Isaksen; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router > > If you didn't need full routes you could go with the EX series for pretty > cheap. > > Dan Farrell > Applied Innovations Corp. > da...@appliedi.net > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:37 AM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router > > Hi! > > I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable > and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small > packets. > > I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. > > I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. > > Can the J2320 handle this? > > -- > Morten Isaksen > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4876 (20100218) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4876 (20100218) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ___ > 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 -- //Patrik Webkom http://www.webkom.se +46 (0)709 35 22 99 +46 (0)8 559 26 488 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Yes, if you only are announced a default route via BGP from two peers and use local preference to choose which one to use... you get away with a lot of ports in line rate capacity with an EX3200 at low price! But then,if you only need 200 Mbps, you could go for SRX210 or SRX240 w/advanced license for BGP. Cheaper than J series! Patrik Dan Farrell wrote: > If you didn't need full routes you could go with the EX series for pretty > cheap. > > Dan Farrell > Applied Innovations Corp. > da...@appliedi.net > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:37 AM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router > > Hi! > > I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable > and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small > packets. > > I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. > > I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. > > Can the J2320 handle this? > > -- > Morten Isaksen > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4876 (20100218) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4876 (20100218) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- //Patrik Webkom http://www.webkom.se +46 (0)709 35 22 99 +46 (0)8 559 26 488 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Hi! You can "turn off" the netscreen flow style of forwarding and fall back to packet based forwarding in J series and SRX for that matter. But still, the perfomance number stays the same even if you keep the flow based forwarding instead och packet based. And it is still JUNOS in both J and SRX... same features! But a security stanza where you get the ScreenOS features available aswell! Replaces on J series and SRX the old services/stateful firewall. Patrik ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Yes, but he's stated two transits so presumed that meant full tables X 2 .. We're ordering a J6350 for this purpose to be safe... we were told that we had to go J6350 to hold two full tables... -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dan Farrell Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:30 AM To: Morten Isaksen; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router If you didn't need full routes you could go with the EX series for pretty cheap. Dan Farrell Applied Innovations Corp. da...@appliedi.net -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:37 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router Hi! I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small packets. I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. Can the J2320 handle this? -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ 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] J2320 as BGP router
If you didn't need full routes you could go with the EX series for pretty cheap. Dan Farrell Applied Innovations Corp. da...@appliedi.net -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:37 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router Hi! I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small packets. I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. Can the J2320 handle this? -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4876 (20100218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
* Patrik Olsson: > I'd say the 200 Mbps wont work... J2320 is 100 Mbps around... and I > think that is iMix, not small packets. I think you need a J4350. It seems J-series has been repositioned as a NetScreen-like security appliance (which is also reflected in configuration defaults). Does it still make sense to use them for new deployments as ordinary routers? -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Hi! I'd say the 200 Mbps wont work... J2320 is 100 Mbps around... and I think that is iMix, not small packets. I think you need a J4350. I run a J2320 myself as an BGP Internet router for a webhotel. I can handle upto 100 Mbps traffic with no problem. I also potentially have room for another full feed in the RAM. Patrik Morten Isaksen wrote: > Hi! > > I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable > and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small > packets. > > I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. > > I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. > > Can the J2320 handle this? > -- //Patrik Webkom http://www.webkom.se +46 (0)709 35 22 99 +46 (0)8 559 26 488 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] query rpd scheduler slip,memory leak
Hi, what is rpd scheduler slip. how do we observe this? What is memory leak? how do we observe this in junos? -- Thanks with regards Shekar.B -- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] CompactFlash Card
Hi Erol, you talked about CF and I overlooked that you also wrote to use it as PCMCIA Device. So I assumed you want to replace your existing CF on the RE. Am I correct? I've never done this CF-PCMCIA stuff, so sorry for the spam :-\ cheers, Christian >Thank you for link. But there is information about how to >replace CF on RE, and minimum requirements for working configuration. >I also suspect about my ULTRA CF card, but i saw some working >examples in that e-mail group. > >=== > >I have successfully done this on RE-400s on M7i's. > >I used Sandisk 2GB Ultra II 15MB/s CFs. I believe the actual >part number is SDCFH-002G-A11. > >=== > > >ha...@t-systems.com wrote On 18-02-2010 13:24: >> Hi there >> >> please take a look at >> >http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing/upgrading_the_CF_on_a_R >> E >> >> >>> I've seen somewhere on Juniper's website that the maximum >allowed CF >>> on M7i is 1GB. >>> >> I've upgraded a RE5.0 by myself and have a SanDisk >SDCJF-2048 working. >> It could be possible that fact that you try to use an Ultra CF card >> could be the problem. Could be that this is an issue with CF >> controller, try to use standard CF instead. >> >> >==8<== >> Routing Engine REV 09 740-009459 xxRE-5.0 >>ad01953 MB SanDisk SDCFJ-2048 004121E1108J2007 >Compact Flash >>ad1 38154 MB ST940818AM Hard Disk >> >==8<== >> >> cheers, >> Christian >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> V.Vasilev >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Erol KAHRAMAN >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, I bought a compactflash card (SanDisk Ultra 2GB) and planned >>> to use it >>> for my M7i box. However, when i insert it to my pcmci >>> interface i saw >>> that it is not in my storage device list. In my log file i >>> get the following lines: >>> /kernel: ad3: Device does not support APM /kernel: ad3: 1918MB at >>> ata2-master PIO4 >>> I also try to prepare CF disk as a bootable media from my >linux box. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd1 bs=512 count=1024 dd if=install-media-10.0R2.10-domestic of=/dev/sdd1 bs=64k After rebooting my router nothing happened. What could be the problem? Is there a way to use my CF card >>> as storage >>> device in my router? ___ 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 >>> >>> > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] CompactFlash Card
Thank you for link. But there is information about how to replace CF on RE, and minimum requirements for working configuration. I also suspect about my ULTRA CF card, but i saw some working examples in that e-mail group. === I have successfully done this on RE-400s on M7i's. I used Sandisk 2GB Ultra II 15MB/s CFs. I believe the actual part number is SDCFH-002G-A11. === ha...@t-systems.com wrote On 18-02-2010 13:24: Hi there please take a look at http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing/upgrading_the_CF_on_a_RE I've seen somewhere on Juniper's website that the maximum allowed CF on M7i is 1GB. I've upgraded a RE5.0 by myself and have a SanDisk SDCJF-2048 working. It could be possible that fact that you try to use an Ultra CF card could be the problem. Could be that this is an issue with CF controller, try to use standard CF instead. ==8<== Routing Engine REV 09 740-009459 xxRE-5.0 ad01953 MB SanDisk SDCFJ-2048 004121E1108J2007 Compact Flash ad1 38154 MB ST940818AM Hard Disk ==8<== cheers, Christian Regards, V.Vasilev On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Erol KAHRAMAN wrote: Hello, I bought a compactflash card (SanDisk Ultra 2GB) and planned to use it for my M7i box. However, when i insert it to my pcmci interface i saw that it is not in my storage device list. In my log file i get the following lines: /kernel: ad3: Device does not support APM /kernel: ad3: 1918MB at ata2-master PIO4 I also try to prepare CF disk as a bootable media from my linux box. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd1 bs=512 count=1024 dd if=install-media-10.0R2.10-domestic of=/dev/sdd1 bs=64k After rebooting my router nothing happened. What could be the problem? Is there a way to use my CF card as storage device in my router? ___ 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] CompactFlash Card
Hi there please take a look at http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing/upgrading_the_CF_on_a_RE > >I've seen somewhere on Juniper's website that the maximum >allowed CF on M7i is 1GB. I've upgraded a RE5.0 by myself and have a SanDisk SDCJF-2048 working. It could be possible that fact that you try to use an Ultra CF card could be the problem. Could be that this is an issue with CF controller, try to use standard CF instead. ==8<== Routing Engine REV 09 740-009459 xxRE-5.0 ad01953 MB SanDisk SDCFJ-2048 004121E1108J2007 Compact Flash ad1 38154 MB ST940818AM Hard Disk ==8<== cheers, Christian > > >Regards, >V.Vasilev > > >On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Erol KAHRAMAN >wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I bought a compactflash card (SanDisk Ultra 2GB) and planned >to use it >> for my M7i box. However, when i insert it to my pcmci >interface i saw >> that it is not in my storage device list. In my log file i >get the following lines: >> >> /kernel: ad3: Device does not support APM >> /kernel: ad3: 1918MB at >ata2-master PIO4 >> >> I also try to prepare CF disk as a bootable media from my linux box. >> >> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd1 bs=512 count=1024 dd >> if=install-media-10.0R2.10-domestic of=/dev/sdd1 bs=64k >> >> After rebooting my router nothing happened. >> >> What could be the problem? Is there a way to use my CF card >as storage >> device in my router? >> ___ >> 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 > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] CompactFlash Card
I've seen somewhere on Juniper's website that the maximum allowed CF on M7i is 1GB. Regards, V.Vasilev On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Erol KAHRAMAN wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a compactflash card (SanDisk Ultra 2GB) and planned to use it for > my M7i box. However, when i insert it to my pcmci interface i saw that it is > not in my storage device list. In my log file i get the following lines: > > /kernel: ad3: Device does not support APM > /kernel: ad3: 1918MB at ata2-master PIO4 > > I also try to prepare CF disk as a bootable media from my linux box. > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd1 bs=512 count=1024 > dd if=install-media-10.0R2.10-domestic of=/dev/sdd1 bs=64k > > After rebooting my router nothing happened. > > What could be the problem? Is there a way to use my CF card as storage > device in my router? > ___ > 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] J2320 as BGP router
As far as I am told it is 2 Gig now. Juniper has just not updated the spec on the web. On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Paul Stewart wrote: > BTW - the max memory in a J2320 is 1 Gig..;) > > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen > Sent: February-18-10 4:37 AM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router > > Hi! > > I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable > and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small > packets. > > I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. > > I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. > > Can the J2320 handle this? > > -- > Morten Isaksen > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
No... I looked at the same thing. Going by the specs (unless I'm misunderstanding) with 1 Gig RAM it's limited to 400k BGP routes... I really hope someone could prove me wrong ;) The 6350 handles 1000k BGP routes with 2 Gig RAM just getting ready to order one of them for the same purpose and traffic levels you have in mind (for a customer site) Paul -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Morten Isaksen Sent: February-18-10 4:37 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router Hi! I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small packets. I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. Can the J2320 handle this? -- Morten Isaksen ___ 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
[j-nsp] J2320 as BGP router
Hi! I need a BGP router that can handle 2 transits with full routetable and 100-200 Mbit throughput - most of it is VOIP traffic so small packets. I am planning to buy a J2320 with 2 GB RAM. I am not planing to use any other features as BGP and a few access-lists. Can the J2320 handle this? -- Morten Isaksen ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] non juniper SFP in MX(No virus check: scan engine not ready)
Hello list, I know non juniper SFP work in MX but would you be worried if you they are not recognized at all by chassisd? Moreover show chassis hardware or pic-status does not list the SFPs at all. On the other hand the links come up and forward traffic with no apparent errors. Would you feel confident about it? l...@mx960_ lab# run show log chassisd| last . Feb 16 15:50:10 pic_copy_port_info:Got cable_type for FPC 0 PIC 2 port 6 cable num=0, str= Thank you in advance, George ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] CompactFlash Card
Hello, I bought a compactflash card (SanDisk Ultra 2GB) and planned to use it for my M7i box. However, when i insert it to my pcmci interface i saw that it is not in my storage device list. In my log file i get the following lines: /kernel: ad3: Device does not support APM /kernel: ad3: 1918MB at ata2-master PIO4 I also try to prepare CF disk as a bootable media from my linux box. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd1 bs=512 count=1024 dd if=install-media-10.0R2.10-domestic of=/dev/sdd1 bs=64k After rebooting my router nothing happened. What could be the problem? Is there a way to use my CF card as storage device in my router? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
