Re: [j-nsp] Juniper M120 - PPM causing issues for BFD
Had a jtac case been opened to get this fixed? On Dec 18, 2010 2:56 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: you could try this knob: set routing-options ppm no-delegate-processing Yes, that would make BFD run on the RE. As the original poster assumed, the performance is indeed lower. I'd say that the fact that BFD on the line card is higher performance (can be run with lower timers etc) is *expected*. We certainly haven't opened a JTAC case to get that fixed. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX unsupported filter policer and actions on loopback lo0
* Julien Goodwin On 18/12/10 07:28, Chris Morrow wrote: yea, so... from: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000215-en.pdf AFL includes licenses for IS-IS, BGP, MPLS and IPv6 routing While we're on the topic, I'm still annoyed at this. Juniper have publicly stated that they won't charge for IPv6, so why are they still doing so on EX? +1 I don't really mind paying a fair price for functionality, but the cost to run IPv6 on the EX-es is beyond ridiculous. For example, the EX3200-24T lists at US$3000. The price of the licence required to run IPv6 on that box? US$4000. Their strategy is utterly incomprehensible to me; it's as if they simply don't want IPv6-using customers. -- 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] TCP based RED profile on MX
I first noticed this with the m120. A workaround is to classify udp to a second best effort egress queue and use a different drop profile. I decided to not deploy this method. -Michael On 12/19/2010 1:43 AM, Good One wrote: thanks for pointing to a URL.. I was expecting that trio architecture MPCs will allow us to configure protocol options if not on DPC. it does not make sense to me drop UPD DNS queries if RED comes into play. JNPR we need protocol option on MXs ... ;) thanks Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:22:12 +0800 Subject: Re: [j-nsp] TCP based RED profile on MX From: diogo.montag...@gmail.com To: go...@live.com CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Hi, On MX you can only configure to protocol any (see the note in the URL below). http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/topics/usage-guidelines/cos-configuring-drop-profile-maps-for-schedulers.html Regards ./diogo -montagner On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Good Onego...@live.com wrote: just a quick one. can you configure red drop profile for tcp traffic only on MX-Boxes? There is a knob on T-Series so that you can define what protocol you want to pass through the red profile either tcp/udp but on MX i could not find that option so it seems if you configure a profile it will analyse/drop any protocol. And to me dropping a UDP packet using RED profile does not make sense at the moment. ___ 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] L2VPN/170/-101
sometime I see the L2VPN/170/-101 in route table, trying to understand what is -101 is indicating? -- David W. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Juniper SSG 550M System Web Access
Hi , you have couple of options to do 1-if the box is not in production restore to factory , if iam not mistaken e4 will be trust interface with 192.168.1.1 2-if you have cli check with below commands get admin (for web is enabled or changed to another port ) get interface related one (check web service is enabled or not , interface ip and manage-ip is the same or not ) 3-check any manager-ip address is set (be careful it is device wide not for spesific interface as I mentioned 2. get conf | i manager-ip -- Erdinc Turna ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] L2VPN/170/-101
This can be seen on BGP routes in general. I remembered some wierdness with respect to 1 complements and google turned up the following. https://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos91/swcmdref-protocols/show-route-detail.html In order to use common comparison routines, JUNOS software stores the 1's complement of the LocalPref value in the Preference2 field. For example, if the LocalPref value for Route 1 is 100, the Preference2 value is -101. If the LocalPref value for Route 2 is 155, the Preference2 value is -156. Route 2 is preferred because it has a higher LocalPref value and a lower Preference2 value. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
