[j-nsp] VPLS issue...
All: We have a two site VPLS setup using virtual-switches. Site A has an IRB in the bridge-domain in the virtual-switch configuration. All is good when the two PEs have a BGP session and the LSPs are up between the two PEs. However, when Site B becomes unreachable, then the IRB and local interface at site A go down and the customer can no longer route out using the IRB. I need this irb and the local interface to stay up so Site A can still route out the IRB even if Site B goes down... I tried the connectivity-type irb knob, but it doesn't help. Running 10.0S8 on MX240s... Any thoughts? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Weird Port Problem
Hi there.. We have a customer we migrated off a Cisco 7600 over to an MX480. Long story short we're having performance issues and have isolated it down to some questions ;) This is a 20GE+2X10GE linecard - customer port is using a copper 10/100/1000 SFP. Port is hard coded to 100/full on both sides. MAC statistics: Receive Transmit Total octets 586682576135778876 Total packets 616114 506951 Unicast packets 616114 506616 Broadcast packets0 335 Multicast packets00 CRC/Align errors 98950 FIFO errors 104900 MAC control frames 00 MAC pause frames 00 Oversized frames 0 Jabber frames0 Fragment frames682 VLAN tagged frames 0 Code violations 0 Filter statistics: Input packet count 616114 Input packet rejects 9895 Input DA rejects 0 Input SA rejects 0 Output packet count 506951 Output packet pad count 0 Output packet error count 0 CAM destination filters: 0, CAM source filters: 0 Opened ticket with JTAC and so far not getting anywhere despite requesting an escalation - they have been analyzing this for over 24 hours now with no idea. According to some docs, FIFO errors mean replace the PIC immediately which I find hard to believe - this could be a classic cat5 issue or an SFP issue but before knocking the customer down would rather get some feedback please.. Customer side is a watchguard firewall unfortunately Thanks, Paul ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Weird Port Problem
Just to be sure, if you want the port to be forced also disable auto-neg on the combo interface. Looks like a duplex mismatch at first sight. Christian Le 21/10/2010 18:26, Paul Stewart a écrit : Hi there.. We have a customer we migrated off a Cisco 7600 over to an MX480. Long story short we're having performance issues and have isolated it down to some questions ;) This is a 20GE+2X10GE linecard - customer port is using a copper 10/100/1000 SFP. Port is hard coded to 100/full on both sides. MAC statistics: Receive Transmit Total octets 586682576135778876 Total packets 616114 506951 Unicast packets 616114 506616 Broadcast packets0 335 Multicast packets00 CRC/Align errors 98950 FIFO errors 104900 MAC control frames 00 MAC pause frames 00 Oversized frames 0 Jabber frames0 Fragment frames682 VLAN tagged frames 0 Code violations 0 Filter statistics: Input packet count 616114 Input packet rejects 9895 Input DA rejects 0 Input SA rejects 0 Output packet count 506951 Output packet pad count 0 Output packet error count 0 CAM destination filters: 0, CAM source filters: 0 Opened ticket with JTAC and so far not getting anywhere despite requesting an escalation - they have been analyzing this for over 24 hours now with no idea. According to some docs, FIFO errors mean replace the PIC immediately which I find hard to believe - this could be a classic cat5 issue or an SFP issue but before knocking the customer down would rather get some feedback please.. Customer side is a watchguard firewall unfortunately Thanks, Paul ___ 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] VPLS issue...
- Forwarded Message From: Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net To: Daniel Hilj daniel.h...@ipnett.se Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 1:24:12 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issue... I need the local interface to remain up too. From: Daniel Hilj daniel.h...@ipnett.se To: Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 11:26:49 AM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issue... Hi, To get around the fact of not having a local interface UP that you need for the IRB to be UP you can configure an lt-interface and add it to you instance. Best Regards/Med vänliga hälsningar Daniel Hilj 21 okt 2010 kl. 18:22 skrev Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net: All: We have a two site VPLS setup using virtual-switches. Site A has an IRB in the bridge-domain in the virtual-switch configuration. All is good when the two PEs have a BGP session and the LSPs are up between the two PEs. However, when Site B becomes unreachable, then the IRB and local interface at site A go down and the customer can no longer route out using the IRB. I need this irb and the local interface to stay up so Site A can still route out the IRB even if Site B goes down... I tried the connectivity-type irb knob, but it doesn't help. Running 10.0S8 on MX240s... Any thoughts? ___ 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] m10 Hard Disk Crashed
See cluepon: http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing_the_harddisk_with_solid_state_flash Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2010, 17:19 -0400 schrieb Fernando Atilano: Anybody that can provide as to how to replace a m10 hard disk? one of them failed. any feedback is greatly appreciated. Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp 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] m10 Hard Disk Crashed
Thank you Jonas !! Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Jonas Frey (Probe Networks) j...@probe-networks.de wrote: See cluepon: http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing_the_harddisk_with_solid_state_flash Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2010, 17:19 -0400 schrieb Fernando Atilano: Anybody that can provide as to how to replace a m10 hard disk? one of them failed. any feedback is greatly appreciated. Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 ___ 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] m10 Hard Disk Crashed
What are the commands you need to use to upgrade the hard disk ? Somethin like: request system snapshot media ... ? Anyone knows how to do that ? Thanks a lot, Thank you Jonas !! Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Jonas Frey (Probe Networks)j...@probe-networks.de wrote: See cluepon: http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing_the_harddisk_with_solid_state_flash Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2010, 17:19 -0400 schrieb Fernando Atilano: Anybody that can provide as to how to replace a m10 hard disk? one of them failed. any feedback is greatly appreciated. Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 ___ 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
[j-nsp] Rate Shaping on a J2350
Quick question about policing.
Basically I'd like to know if this config will work. I'm pretty sure it
will and the Juniper docs seems to agree with me, but the collective
wisdom of JNSP would be appreciated.
Router in question is a Juniper J2350.
Basically I want to say:
192.168.0.0/24 is in total allowed 50Mb/s of bandwidth. This is the
global limit that shouldn't be exceeded, regardless of what individual
customers are doing.
Then, under that, individiual customers (allocated a /30) are given a
maximum limit. That is, they can move traffic up to the rate they've
purchased, assuming the /24 still has capacity.
This is the config I have. The key bit of my question involves the use of
the term next statement:
term Global-Shape{
from {
destination-address {
192.168.0.0/24;
}
}
then {
policer rl-50;
next term; - Valid? Will this work as intended?
}
}
term Customer1 {
from {
destination-address {
192.168.0.0/30;
}
}
then {
policer rl-10; This customer gets 10Mb/s total.
count Customer1;
}
}
term Customer2 {
from {
destination-address {
192.168.0.4/30;
}
}
then {
policer rl-20; This customer gets 20Mb/s total.
count Customer2;
}
}
Assume there's another 20 customers all configured the same.
Basically: If the sum of the /30's policers is say, 150Mb/s will the above
config limit the /24 to 50Mb/s?
Thanks for any pointers you can provide.
Kind Regards,
Tim H
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] m10 Hard Disk Crashed
See: http://www.mail-archive.com/juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net/msg06658.html request system partition hard-disk request system snapshot partition request system snapshot Am Donnerstag, den 21.10.2010, 20:16 -0200 schrieb Giuliano Cardozo Medalha: What are the commands you need to use to upgrade the hard disk ? Somethin like: request system snapshot media ... ? Anyone knows how to do that ? Thanks a lot, Thank you Jonas !! Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Jonas Frey (Probe Networks)j...@probe-networks.de wrote: See cluepon: http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Replacing_the_harddisk_with_solid_state_flash Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2010, 17:19 -0400 schrieb Fernando Atilano: Anybody that can provide as to how to replace a m10 hard disk? one of them failed. any feedback is greatly appreciated. Fernando Atilano| Transtelco| Networking Support MX 52.656.257.1114 US1.915.217.2286 ___ 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 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] Rate Shaping on a J2350
I did a similar exercise a while ago on T-series and it works, I would
expect it to work the same way on J-series.
Some tips:
1/ if you want to limit two or more customers to, say, 10Mbps each, don't
configure a filter-specific policer, configure a regular 10Mbps policer.
By default, a regular policer is term-specific and two or more customers can
be separately rate-limited by the different instances of the same regular
policer in different FW filter terms.
2/ filter-specific policer would come into play when you want to give a
shared (sub)bandwidth to two or more customers. If a policer is referenced
only once inside the FW filter, there is no difference between
filter-specific and default (term-specific) policer.
3/ with your example config, it is not possible to discriminate between
customers sharing 50Mbps bandwith - e.g. 1st customer could be clogging the
pipe up to own policer limit and all others will be forced to use what's
left of bandwidth delta (50Mbps less 1st customer policer limit).
Shaping+scheduling could be a better approach.
Rgds
Alex
- Original Message -
From: TiM t...@muppetz.com
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:07 PM
Subject: [j-nsp] Rate Shaping on a J2350
Quick question about policing.
Basically I'd like to know if this config will work. I'm pretty sure it
will and the Juniper docs seems to agree with me, but the collective
wisdom of JNSP would be appreciated.
Router in question is a Juniper J2350.
Basically I want to say:
192.168.0.0/24 is in total allowed 50Mb/s of bandwidth. This is the
global limit that shouldn't be exceeded, regardless of what individual
customers are doing.
Then, under that, individiual customers (allocated a /30) are given a
maximum limit. That is, they can move traffic up to the rate they've
purchased, assuming the /24 still has capacity.
This is the config I have. The key bit of my question involves the use of
the term next statement:
term Global-Shape{
from {
destination-address {
192.168.0.0/24;
}
}
then {
policer rl-50;
next term; - Valid? Will this work as intended?
}
}
term Customer1 {
from {
destination-address {
192.168.0.0/30;
}
}
then {
policer rl-10; This customer gets 10Mb/s total.
count Customer1;
}
}
term Customer2 {
from {
destination-address {
192.168.0.4/30;
}
}
then {
policer rl-20; This customer gets 20Mb/s total.
count Customer2;
}
}
Assume there's another 20 customers all configured the same.
Basically: If the sum of the /30's policers is say, 150Mb/s will the above
config limit the /24 to 50Mb/s?
Thanks for any pointers you can provide.
Kind Regards,
Tim H
___
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] SRX for MPLS
People, Does anyone uses SRX routers for MPLS (VPLS) Transport ? We are thinking about the use of SRX220 under some conditions: - Use it in a not a good environment without air conditioning and a lot of dust ... external box temperature rises from 35 to 42 Celsius. - Be the point to interconnect POPs using point to point radios (100~1000 Mbps) - Using it to provide a VPLS infrastructure for L2 transport and client isolation until the start of the backbone (M7i and MX80 Routers) - SRX220 to provide OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 L3 gateway for some routed clients. The figure showed at the following link tries to resume it at all: http://www.wztech.com.br/JUNIPER/Topology.png It is possible to use this box in a such project ? Do you have any experience using it to do this type of topology ? Is is possible that SRX220 can work fine under so strength environment conditions ? Could it blow up or goes down ? If someone has implemented this kind of environment can please share the experiences ? Thanks a lot, Giuliano ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
People, Does anyone uses SRX routers for MPLS (VPLS) Transport ? We are thinking about the use of SRX220 under some conditions: - Use it in a not a good environment without air conditioning and a lot of dust ... external box temperature rises from 35 to 42 Celsius. - Be the point to interconnect POPs using point to point radios (100~1000 Mbps) - Using it to provide a VPLS infrastructure for L2 transport and client isolation until the start of the backbone (M7i and MX80 Routers) - SRX220 to provide OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 L3 gateway for some routed clients. The figure showed at the following link tries to resume it at all: http://www.wztech.com.br/JUNIPER/Topology.png It is possible to use this box in a such project ? Do you have any experience using it to do this type of topology ? Is is possible that SRX220 can work fine under so strength environment conditions ? Could it blow up or goes down ? If someone has implemented this kind of environment can please share the experiences ? Thanks a lot, Giuliano ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
Hi Giuliano, We do not support MPLS on SRX platforms. Thanks Regards, Jai - Original Message - From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Thu Oct 21 19:48:46 2010 Subject: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS People, Does anyone uses SRX routers for MPLS (VPLS) Transport ? We are thinking about the use of SRX220 under some conditions: - Use it in a not a good environment without air conditioning and a lot of dust ... external box temperature rises from 35 to 42 Celsius. - Be the point to interconnect POPs using point to point radios (100~1000 Mbps) - Using it to provide a VPLS infrastructure for L2 transport and client isolation until the start of the backbone (M7i and MX80 Routers) - SRX220 to provide OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 L3 gateway for some routed clients. The figure showed at the following link tries to resume it at all: http://www.wztech.com.br/JUNIPER/Topology.png It is possible to use this box in a such project ? Do you have any experience using it to do this type of topology ? Is is possible that SRX220 can work fine under so strength environment conditions ? Could it blow up or goes down ? If someone has implemented this kind of environment can please share the experiences ? Thanks a lot, Giuliano ___ 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] SRX for MPLS
I don't believe that's the case. You can do MPLS (I can't say I've ever done
it, but I know the config is possible) the major catch with that is the SRX
will be switched to packet mode (vs flow) and you loose the flow
capabilities of the SRX platform. Basically you can turn the SRX into a
branch router and do MPLS but the MPLS router+firewall isn't possible.
security {
forwarding-options {
family {
mpls {
mode packet-based;
}
}
}
}
Hope this clears things up,
-Tim Eberhard
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jai Chandra Gundapaneni
jaichan...@juniper.net wrote:
At least not yet I should say.
Thanks Regards,
Jai
- Original Message -
From: Jai Chandra Gundapaneni
To: 'giulian...@uol.com.br' giulian...@uol.com.br; '
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net' juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu Oct 21 19:57:52 2010
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
Hi Giuliano,
We do not support MPLS on SRX platforms.
Thanks Regards,
Jai
- Original Message -
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu Oct 21 19:48:46 2010
Subject: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
People,
Does anyone uses SRX routers for MPLS (VPLS) Transport ?
We are thinking about the use of SRX220 under some conditions:
- Use it in a not a good environment without air conditioning and a lot
of dust ... external box temperature rises from 35 to 42 Celsius.
- Be the point to interconnect POPs using point to point radios
(100~1000 Mbps)
- Using it to provide a VPLS infrastructure for L2 transport and client
isolation until the start of the backbone (M7i and MX80 Routers)
- SRX220 to provide OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 L3 gateway for some routed clients.
The figure showed at the following link tries to resume it at all:
http://www.wztech.com.br/JUNIPER/Topology.png
It is possible to use this box in a such project ? Do you have any
experience using it to do this type of topology ?
Is is possible that SRX220 can work fine under so strength environment
conditions ? Could it blow up or goes down ?
If someone has implemented this kind of environment can please share the
experiences ?
Thanks a lot,
Giuliano
___
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] SRX for MPLS
Sorry for the confusion. The top end SRX don't yet support the MPLS feature as
yet. The top end SRX don't work in packet mode.
--Original Message--
From: EXT - xmi...@gmail.com
To: Jai Chandra Gundapaneni
Cc: giulian...@uol.com.br
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
Sent: Oct 22, 2010 08:43
I don't believe that's the case. You can do MPLS (I can't say I've ever done
it, but I know the config is possible) the major catch with that is the SRX
will be switched to packet mode (vs flow) and you loose the flow capabilities
of the SRX platform. Basically you can turn the SRX into a branch router and do
MPLS but the MPLS router+firewall isn't possible. security {
forwarding-options { family { mpls { mode
packet-based; } } } } Hope this clears
things up, -Tim Eberhard On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jai Chandra
Gundapaneni jaichan...@juniper.net wrote: At least not yet I should say.
Thanks Regards, Jai - Original Message - From: Jai Chandra
Gundapaneni To: 'giulian...@uol.com.br' giulian...@uol.com.br;
'juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net' juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Thu Oct 21
19:57:52 2010 Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS Hi Giuliano, We do not support
MPLS on SRX platforms. Thanks Regards, Jai - Original Message -
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Thu Oct 21
19:48:46 2010 Subject: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS People, Does anyone uses SRX
routers for MPLS (VPLS) Transport ? We are thinking about the use of SRX220
under some conditions: - Use it in a not a good environment without air
conditioning and a lot of dust ... external box temperature rises from 35 to 42
Celsius. - Be the point to interconnect POPs using point to point radios
(100~1000 Mbps) - Using it to provide a VPLS infrastructure for L2 transport
and client isolation until the start of the backbone (M7i and MX80 Routers) -
SRX220 to provide OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 L3 gateway for some routed clients. The
figure showed at the following link tries to resume it at all:
http://www.wztech.com.br/JUNIPER/Topology.png It is possible to use this box in
a such project ? Do you have any experience using it to do this type of
topology ? Is is possible that SRX220 can work fine under so strength
environment conditions ? Could it blow up or goes down ? If someone has
implemented this kind of environment can please share the experiences ? Thanks
a lot, Giuliano ___ 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
Thanks Regards,
Jai
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
High-end SRXs (SRX3000s and SRX5000s) do not support packet-based only
processing.
Branch SRX (SRX100s, SRX200s, SRX650s) support either packet-based only,
flow-based only or mixed mode (selective packet services). Please refer to the
following app note for some great examples:
https://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/app-notes/3500192-en.pdf
Thanks,
Barny Sanchez
Sr. Consulting Engineer, Security Products Solutions
Juniper Networks
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Tim Eberhard wrote:
I don't believe that's the case. You can do MPLS (I can't say I've ever done
it, but I know the config is possible) the major catch with that is the SRX
will be switched to packet mode (vs flow) and you loose the flow
capabilities of the SRX platform. Basically you can turn the SRX into a
branch router and do MPLS but the MPLS router+firewall isn't possible.
security {
forwarding-options {
family {
mpls {
mode packet-based;
}
}
}
}
Hope this clears things up,
-Tim Eberhard
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jai Chandra Gundapaneni
jaichan...@juniper.net wrote:
At least not yet I should say.
Thanks Regards,
Jai
- Original Message -
From: Jai Chandra Gundapaneni
To: 'giulian...@uol.com.br' giulian...@uol.com.br; '
juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net' juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu Oct 21 19:57:52 2010
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
Hi Giuliano,
We do not support MPLS on SRX platforms.
Thanks Regards,
Jai
- Original Message -
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thu Oct 21 19:48:46 2010
Subject: [j-nsp] SRX for MPLS
People,
Does anyone uses SRX routers for MPLS (VPLS) Transport ?
We are thinking about the use of SRX220 under some conditions:
- Use it in a not a good environment without air conditioning and a lot
of dust ... external box temperature rises from 35 to 42 Celsius.
- Be the point to interconnect POPs using point to point radios
(100~1000 Mbps)
- Using it to provide a VPLS infrastructure for L2 transport and client
isolation until the start of the backbone (M7i and MX80 Routers)
- SRX220 to provide OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 L3 gateway for some routed clients.
The figure showed at the following link tries to resume it at all:
http://www.wztech.com.br/JUNIPER/Topology.png
It is possible to use this box in a such project ? Do you have any
experience using it to do this type of topology ?
Is is possible that SRX220 can work fine under so strength environment
conditions ? Could it blow up or goes down ?
If someone has implemented this kind of environment can please share the
experiences ?
Thanks a lot,
Giuliano
___
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
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] VPLS issue...
I found three ways to keep the local interface up so it can hit the irb interface even if all remote PEs for the VPLS instance are lost: 1. Use two physical ports to the PE from the CE, one for VPLS and one for L3. You could put a switch in front of your PE to accomplish this. I think this is the cleanest way. 2. Plug a cable into two ports on the same PE (both ends of cable going into same box). Build a bridge-group for the VLAN. Put one end of the cable into the bridge group. In the same bridge-group put the VLAN coming in from the CE. The other end of the cable put into the VPLS switch instance. Traffic coming from CE will be bridged to the one end of the cable then come back around into the VPLS instance. The irb interface is specified in the bridge-group. The irb interface can exist in any routing-instance. 3. Make an lt-x/x/x interface pair. Build a bridge-group for the VLAN, put the VLAN coming from the CE into the bridge-group. Put one of the lt interfaces into the bridge group. This lt interface should be encapsulation vlan. The other lt interface should be encapsulation vlan-vpls and put this into the VPLS instance. The irb interface is specified in the bridge-group. The irb interface can exist in any routing-instance. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
