Re: [j-nsp] Juniper SFP's

[sthaug]

> Does anyone have experience with the compatibility of the generics?

We've been using generic SFPs and XFPs in Juniper M and MX routers
for many years. Never had a problem except, as others also have noted,
not all 1000baseT SFPs work equally well.

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] Juniper SFP's

[Jeff Wheeler]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens
 wrote:
> Juniper are really pissing me off in regards to their SFP's.

Agreed.

> Is there ANY actual difference between these SFP's? They are all the same
> price from the distributor but they all have different availability - see
> number above for example from one of my disties.

Yes.  The QFX3500 actually requires QFX-specific SFP/SFP+ and even the
Juniper OEM ones for other Juniper products will not function in a
QFX3500, at least as of 11.3.  A little bird told me that they will
remove the optics lock-in sometime this year.  The sooner this
happens, the better.

I, too, am not willing to wait for Juniper to supply me with SFPs,
especially since Juniper is honestly pretty bad at supply chain /
logistics, and does not even offer colored SFPs for some of these
products.  Cost is not the overriding concern here, it is
AVAILABILITY.

We literally shipped a QFX3500 to a third-party optics vendor's lab
and had them figure out how to re-flash generic optics so they would
work in it.  This because our SE gave us an incorrect answer about
whether or not it would work with generics -- turns out it doesn't.
One of my clients was so angry about this that they returned some of
their QFX3500s and got their money back over this, and bought another
manufacturer's product instead.

I can only guess that the reason Juniper has different SKUs for the
optics for different product families is that this is the mechanism
they use to credit the optics revenue to the correct product group,
and this must be why the QFX won't work with Juniper optics from other
product lines.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler 
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[sthaug]

> The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow statistics.  
> No services card required.  Just have to be sure your collector supports it.

But they still need a (rather expensive) license?

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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Misha Gzirishvili]

AFAIK, Proteus has workbook for jncie-sp, and they do bootcamps as well.
Check proteus.net for more details.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Juniper SFP's

[Ben Boyd]

Skeeve, 

I can't speak to the differences in the Juniper SFP types, but I can tell you 
I've seen generics of all kinds work in EXs, MXs, Ms, and SRXs.  

I've never had one go bad and I've never had JTAC mention the generic-ness of 
them when opening tickets. YMMV, however.



---
Ben Boyd
b...@sinatranetwork.com
http://about.me/benboyd




On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

> Hey all,
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper are really pissing me off in regards to their SFP's.
> 
> As an example:
> 
> CTP-SFP-1GE-SX (0)
> EX-SFP-1GE-SX (163)
> JX-SFP-1GE-SX (2)
> QFX-SFP-1GE-SX (5)
> SRX-SFP-1GE-SX (4)
> 
> Is there ANY actual difference between these SFP's? They are all the same
> price from the distributor but they all have different availability - see
> number above for example from one of my disties.
> 
> I recently deployed some MX80, EX4200 and SRX240 and had to order different
> SFP's for them all.. and the SRX one took ages...
> 
> There is likely to be no difference, but will JTAC tell me to get lost if I
> use an EX one in an SRX or MX or vice versa?
> 
> *Frustrated*
> 
> Does anyone have experience with the compatibility of the generics?
> Agilestair or so on?  I really am happy to sell genuine Juniper SFP's, but
> why the hell are there different codes for each one?  Why am I waiting for
> stock for 3 weeks for an SRX one when they have 163 EX ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day ;-)
> 
> *Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
> eintellego Pty Ltd
> ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net 
> 
> Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> 
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> 
> facebook.com/eintellego
> 
> twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> 
> PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
> 
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
> Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
> ___
> 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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[bruno.juniper]

hello stefan,


Do juniper sell JNCIE bootcamp workbook  on website? i heard people take the 
bootcamp will got a lab guide.
--
Best Regards,
Bruno




 


 
 
-- Original --
From:  "Stefan Fouant";
Date:  Wed, Apr 25, 2012 09:53 AM
To:  "Juniper Maillist"; 
Cc:  "bruno.juniper"; 
"juniper-nsp"; 
Subject:  Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

 
On 4/24/2012 8:42 PM, Juniper Maillist wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> Do you recommend taking the bootcamp just before entering the exam (1 week 
> before) for well prepared candidates? If no, when do you recommend to take it?

No, this is a big mistake. I recently taught the bootcamp and had two 
candidates attempt to sit the exam the very next week and both failed 
despite being fairly well prepared.

No matter how well prepared you are, during the bootcamp you are going 
to identify areas that need improvement. I think a few weeks are 
warranted to go through and master those areas prior to sitting the 
exam. If you can, I'd schedule the actual exam about a month after 
taking the bootcamp.

HTHs.

-- 
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[OBrien, Will]

I agree with that. I looked at the ASR the other day. the 6 slot chassis is 
only 4 for line cards. the first two are taken.
The 480 allows for six + 2xSCB/RE


On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:

> Go with the 480 if you go juniper.  The cost difference between chassis is
> negligible even if you won't use the extra slots for some time.  Haven't
> played with the cisco option much so I can't vouch for the 9k.  Your
> environment matters as well.  What your engineers are comfortable with,
> what your automation and backend systems suport, etc.  The boxes also
> differ in terms of horsepower, number of routes supported,port density.
> Are any of these limits important to you?  If they are really
> interchangeable in your environment I'd probably go with the cheaper of the
> two.
> 
> 
> 
> 2012/4/24 Peter 
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>> 
>> 1.
>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow v9
>> or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> 2. asr 9006
>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>> - license for l3 vpn
>> 
>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>> 
>> - ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>> - v6
>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times to
>> the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in next
>> term
>> - access to counters via snmp
>> - independent control plane and data plane
>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>> 
>> which model will be better ?
>> thanks for some advice
>> 
>> regards
>> Peter
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Juniper Maillist]

Thanks for the advice. 

BR//
Abdullah

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Stefan Fouant  
wrote:

> On 4/24/2012 8:42 PM, Juniper Maillist wrote:
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Do you recommend taking the bootcamp just before entering the exam (1 week 
>> before) for well prepared candidates? If no, when do you recommend to take 
>> it?
> 
> No, this is a big mistake. I recently taught the bootcamp and had two 
> candidates attempt to sit the exam the very next week and both failed despite 
> being fairly well prepared.
> 
> No matter how well prepared you are, during the bootcamp you are going to 
> identify areas that need improvement. I think a few weeks are warranted to go 
> through and master those areas prior to sitting the exam. If you can, I'd 
> schedule the actual exam about a month after taking the bootcamp.
> 
> HTHs.
> 
> -- 
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
> 
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Keegan Holley]

Go with the 480 if you go juniper.  The cost difference between chassis is
negligible even if you won't use the extra slots for some time.  Haven't
played with the cisco option much so I can't vouch for the 9k.  Your
environment matters as well.  What your engineers are comfortable with,
what your automation and backend systems suport, etc.  The boxes also
differ in terms of horsepower, number of routes supported,port density.
 Are any of these limits important to you?  If they are really
interchangeable in your environment I'd probably go with the cheaper of the
two.



2012/4/24 Peter 

> Hi
>
> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
> 1.
> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow v9
> or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
> or
>
> 2. asr 9006
> - A9K-RSP-4G
> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
> - license for l3 vpn
>
> the price is almost the same. I need:
>
> - ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
> - v6
> - up to 12 full bgp feed
> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times to
> the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in next
> term
> - access to counters via snmp
> - independent control plane and data plane
> - and few others things on bgp edge
>
> which model will be better ?
> thanks for some advice
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> ___
> 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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 8:42 PM, Juniper Maillist wrote:

Thanks,

Do you recommend taking the bootcamp just before entering the exam (1 week 
before) for well prepared candidates? If no, when do you recommend to take it?


No, this is a big mistake. I recently taught the bootcamp and had two 
candidates attempt to sit the exam the very next week and both failed 
despite being fairly well prepared.


No matter how well prepared you are, during the bootcamp you are going 
to identify areas that need improvement. I think a few weeks are 
warranted to go through and master those areas prior to sitting the 
exam. If you can, I'd schedule the actual exam about a month after 
taking the bootcamp.


HTHs.

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Phil Bedard]

No it is 80G per slot redundant.  The older 8T 8x10G cards are not quite line 
rate at all packet sizes but are in an IMIX scenario.   Cisco and juniper both 
have been playing pretty loose with the term line rate lately.  

Pricing wise they do have an 80G modular card which has a 4x10G and 20x1G 
module which is probably right around the same cost as the MX stuff.  The 
RSP440 also has a couple 10G ports if you want to use them...

Phil

On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Corey Robertson  wrote:

> Also, I might be wrong, but doesn't the RSP4G limit the per slot cap to 40g 
> in a single RSP (failure) scenario? That rules out your max 8x10G line rate.
> 
> Again I could be wrong, I'm going off of memory. 
> 
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Skeeve Stevens 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Does that put the cost comparison out of alignment?
>> 
>> *Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
>> eintellego Pty Ltd
>> ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net 
>> 
>> Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
>> 
>> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>> 
>> facebook.com/eintellego
>> 
>> twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> 
>> PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
>> 
>> The Experts Who The Experts Call
>> Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:31, Phil Bedard  wrote:
>> 
>>> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially
>>> higher, 2M+ IPv4.  But you are right the first gen cards the original
>>> poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in
>>> the Internet table.
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks  wrote:
>>> 
 The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
 around 500K.
 
 Thank you,
 
 --
 Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
 Sr. Systems Engineer
 Juniper Networks
 
 
 On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter"  wrote:
 
> Hi
> 
> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
> 
> 1.
> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
> 
> or
> 
> 2. asr 9006
> - A9K-RSP-4G
> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
> - license for l3 vpn
> 
> the price is almost the same. I need:
> 
> - ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
> - v6
> - up to 12 full bgp feed
> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
> next term
> - access to counters via snmp
> - independent control plane and data plane
> - and few others things on bgp edge
> 
> which model will be better ?
> thanks for some advice
> 
> regards
> Peter
> 
> ___
> 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

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Corey Robertson]

Also, I might be wrong, but doesn't the RSP4G limit the per slot cap to 40g in 
a single RSP (failure) scenario? That rules out your max 8x10G line rate.

Again I could be wrong, I'm going off of memory. 

On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Skeeve Stevens  
wrote:

> Does that put the cost comparison out of alignment?
> 
> *Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
> eintellego Pty Ltd
> ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net 
> 
> Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> 
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
> 
> facebook.com/eintellego
> 
> twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> 
> PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
> 
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
> Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:31, Phil Bedard  wrote:
> 
>> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially
>> higher, 2M+ IPv4.  But you are right the first gen cards the original
>> poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in
>> the Internet table.
>> 
>> Phil
>> 
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks  wrote:
>> 
>>> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
>>> around 500K.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
>>> Sr. Systems Engineer
>>> Juniper Networks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter"  wrote:
>>> 
 Hi
 
 I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
 
 1.
 - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
 MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
 - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
 v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
 
 or
 
 2. asr 9006
 - A9K-RSP-4G
 - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
 - license for l3 vpn
 
 the price is almost the same. I need:
 
 - ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
 - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
 - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
 - v6
 - up to 12 full bgp feed
 - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
 - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
 to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
 next term
 - access to counters via snmp
 - independent control plane and data plane
 - and few others things on bgp edge
 
 which model will be better ?
 thanks for some advice
 
 regards
 Peter
 
 ___
 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

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Harry Reynolds]

Wow, big new and congrats to Doug, Joe, and crew!

Thanks for the heads-up Stefan.

Regards




-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net 
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Fouant
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:29 PM
To: Ron Johnson
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

On 4/24/2012 7:32 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> In other news today...
>
> http://www.proteus.net/about/press-room/torrey-point-acquires-proteus-networks

Big congrats to Joe Soricelli and Doug Marschke who both founded Proteus 
and are frequent visitors/posters on this list. All the best to you in 
your new venture and teaming up w/ TorreyPoint.

-- 
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
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] Juniper SFP's

[Skeeve Stevens]

Hey all,



Juniper are really pissing me off in regards to their SFP's.

As an example:

CTP-SFP-1GE-SX (0)
EX-SFP-1GE-SX (163)
JX-SFP-1GE-SX (2)
QFX-SFP-1GE-SX (5)
SRX-SFP-1GE-SX (4)

Is there ANY actual difference between these SFP's? They are all the same
price from the distributor but they all have different availability - see
number above for example from one of my disties.

I recently deployed some MX80, EX4200 and SRX240 and had to order different
SFP's for them all.. and the SRX one took ages...

There is likely to be no difference, but will JTAC tell me to get lost if I
use an EX one in an SRX or MX or vice versa?

*Frustrated*

Does anyone have experience with the compatibility of the generics?
Agilestair or so on?  I really am happy to sell genuine Juniper SFP's, but
why the hell are there different codes for each one?  Why am I waiting for
stock for 3 weeks for an SRX one when they have 163 EX ones.



Have a nice day ;-)

*Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
eintellego Pty Ltd
ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net 

Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego

twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve

PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Juniper Maillist]

Thanks,

Do you recommend taking the bootcamp just before entering the exam (1 week 
before) for well prepared candidates? If no, when do you recommend to take it? 


BR//
Abdullah

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:26 AM, Stefan Fouant  
wrote:

> On 4/24/2012 7:31 PM, Juniper Maillist wrote:
>> Hi Stephan,
>> 
>> How can we order the JNCIE-SP bootcamp material from the OnFullifillment 
>> website?
>> 
>> I could not find it in the courses lists.
> 
> I was mistaken, it appears we do not offer the bootcamp materials on our 
> onfulfillment website at this time, although this may be subject to change 
> sometime in the future.
> 
> -- 
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
> 
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 7:32 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:

In other news today...

http://www.proteus.net/about/press-room/torrey-point-acquires-proteus-networks


Big congrats to Joe Soricelli and Doug Marschke who both founded Proteus 
and are frequent visitors/posters on this list. All the best to you in 
your new venture and teaming up w/ TorreyPoint.


--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 7:31 PM, Juniper Maillist wrote:

Hi Stephan,

How can we order the JNCIE-SP bootcamp material from the OnFullifillment 
website?

I could not find it in the courses lists.


I was mistaken, it appears we do not offer the bootcamp materials on our 
onfulfillment website at this time, although this may be subject to 
change sometime in the future.


--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Skeeve Stevens]

Does that put the cost comparison out of alignment?

*Skeeve Stevens, CEO*
eintellego Pty Ltd
ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net 

Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego

twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve

PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM



On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:31, Phil Bedard  wrote:

> If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially
> higher, 2M+ IPv4.  But you are right the first gen cards the original
> poster had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in
> the Internet table.
>
> Phil
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks  wrote:
>
> > The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
> > around 500K.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --
> > Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
> > Sr. Systems Engineer
> > Juniper Networks
> >
> >
> > On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter"  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
> >>
> >> 1.
> >> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
> >> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
> >> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
> >> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> 2. asr 9006
> >> - A9K-RSP-4G
> >> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
> >> - license for l3 vpn
> >>
> >> the price is almost the same. I need:
> >>
> >> - ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
> >> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
> >> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
> >> - v6
> >> - up to 12 full bgp feed
> >> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
> >> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
> >> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
> >> next term
> >> - access to counters via snmp
> >> - independent control plane and data plane
> >> - and few others things on bgp edge
> >>
> >> which model will be better ?
> >> thanks for some advice
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Juniper Maillist]

Hi Stephan,

How can we order the JNCIE-SP bootcamp material from the OnFullifillment 
website? 

I could not find it in the courses lists. 

BR//
Abdullah

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Stefan Fouant  
wrote:

> On 4/23/2012 11:26 PM, bruno.juniper wrote:
>> Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper
> 
> Your best bet is to go through all the labs in JIR, AJSPR, JMV, JMR, and 
> JCOS. Mock these up and go through as many different scenarios as possible. 
> Also, the labs in Harry Reynolds' JNCIP and JNCIE Study Guides are still good 
> to go through as they are somewhat representative of the type of stuff you 
> will seen on the exam.
> 
> In addition, have you taken our JNCIE-SP bootcamp? You can order these 
> materials from our OnFullfillment website.
> 
> -- 
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
> 
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
> ___
> 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] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Phil Bedard]

If you are using the newer RSP440 and newer linecards it is substantially 
higher, 2M+ IPv4.  But you are right the first gen cards the original poster 
had speced only support 512K in the FIB and we are at 400K+ now in the Internet 
table.  

Phil

On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks  wrote:

> The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
> around 500K.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -- 
> Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> Juniper Networks
> 
> 
> On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter"  wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>> 
>> 1.
>> - bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>> MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>> - better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>> v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> 2. asr 9006
>> - A9K-RSP-4G
>> - A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>> - license for l3 vpn
>> 
>> the price is almost the same. I need:
>> 
>> - ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
>> - 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>> - 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>> - v6
>> - up to 12 full bgp feed
>> - netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>> - define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>> to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>> next term
>> - access to counters via snmp
>> - independent control plane and data plane
>> - and few others things on bgp edge
>> 
>> which model will be better ?
>> thanks for some advice
>> 
>> regards
>> Peter
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Doug Hanks]

The MX using Trio/MPC line cards support inline IPFIX for flow statistics.  No 
services card required.  Just have to be sure your collector supports it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Flow_Information_Export

Thank you,

--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks

From: Serge Vautour mailto:sergevaut...@yahoo.ca>>
Reply-To: Serge Vautour mailto:se...@nbnet.nb.ca>>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:55:39 -0700
To: Doug Hanks mailto:dha...@juniper.net>>, 
"juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

Note that the MX requires an MS-DPC card in order to to NetFlow v9.

Serge

From: Doug Hanks mailto:dha...@juniper.net>>
To: Peter mailto:piotr.1...@interia.pl>>; 
"juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" 
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:41:24 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.

Thank you,

--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter" 
mailto:piotr.1...@interia.pl>> wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
>1.
>- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
>or
>
>2. asr 9006
>- A9K-RSP-4G
>- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>- license for l3 vpn
>
>the price is almost the same. I need:
>
>- ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
>- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>- v6
>- up to 12 full bgp feed
>- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>next term
>- access to counters via snmp
>- independent control plane and data plane
>- and few others things on bgp edge
>
>which model will be better ?
>thanks for some advice
>
>regards
>Peter
>
>___
>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] ACX Update?

[Corey Bryndal [PR]]

Hi all,

Looking for more detailed specs/supported features, ship dates and anticipated 
pricing..

Thx in Advance!

Corey..
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Interconnect two VRFs via L2 security box with redundant path

[Stefan Fouant]

Comments in-line...

On 4/24/2012 1:48 PM, Clarke Morledge wrote:

Stefan,

I was just hunting through your blog for ideas when I saw your post :-)
Thanks for jumping in. A few responses in-line below.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Stefan Fouant wrote:


If that adjacency goes down, a simple floating static (static route w/
higher preference than the dynamic BGP/IS-IS route) can be used
pointing to next-table will do the trick. No need to used
Logical-Tunnels or use auto-export.


If my two routers were directly connected all of the time, this would be
fine. But I'm also thinking of the case of when there might be another
L3 hop between the two routers. I guess I could insert another floating
static on the third router, but that just seemed to add a little more
complexity to me. I was hoping for a way to just let the dynamic routing
protocols do the work for me instead of fooling with a bunch of statics
with filter-based forwarding. Don't get me wrong, I like FBF. I was just
hoping to leverage dynamic routing more.


I guess what I was referring to is that you don't really need to have 
the MX West device be used at all in the event that the L2 Packet 
scrubber dies, as per the restrictions in your initial email:


"I also need to have a redundant path, preferably passing through the 
other core router (MX West).  In the event that the Layer2 box dies, or 
if the MX East core router dies, unfortunately traffic will not get 
inspected but I will still have connectivity between the North and South 
VRFs via the MX West core router. "


What I'm saying is that if the Packet Scrubber dies, the protocol 
adjacency through the VR North and the VR South on the MX East device 
will fail, and you could simply route directly from VR North to VR South 
on the same device by using simple floating static route pointing to 
next-table. In other words, if traffic arrives in VR North on MX East 
and packet scrubber device dies, then the floating static in 
vr_north.inet.0 will point to vr_south.inet.0, and vice-versa for 
traffic in the reverse direction. So you have no need for a redundant 
path through MX West and that would only be used in the event that the 
entire MX East device goes down.



Of course, in your case you've got not just two VRFs but also an East
and West path which further complicates things - why not just connect
the MX West device into your L2 Packet Scrubber as well and keep
things the same on both the East and West device so that you can take
full advantage of two planes. This will keep configurations uniform
regardless of whether traffic comes in on the East or West devices.


I should have given the reason why I do not put the L2 scrubber between
the two routers: conservation of fiber. I already have fiber connecting
the routers in different wiring centers for traffic that does not need
to be scrubbed. Chewing up another set of strands is much more expensive
than simply connecting both sides of the L2 scrubber to just one router
in the same rack.


Makes sense...

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 2:02 PM, Devin Kennedy wrote:

Hi Stefan:

Do you also have a recommendation for study materials for the JNCIP-SP
(taking to renew JNCIE-M) and also for study towards the JNCIE-SEC exams?


Hi Devin,

The same materials that you would use to prepare for JNCIE are also the 
ones you would use to prepare for the JNCIP written exam, so JCOS, JMV, 
JMR, and AJSPR. I would say the majority of the exam is based on routing 
so your main focus should be on the AJSPR materials - lot of BGP, IS-IS 
and OSPF questions.


If you're already JNCIE-M, I would say a light review would be 
sufficient - the passing score is pretty low so I don't think you'll 
have any problems.


For the SEC exam, I would recommend JSEC, AJSEC, JIPS, and JUTM, as well 
as a cover-to-cover read of the 'Junos Security' book by Rob Cameron, 
Tim Eberhard, et. al. Get your hands on some SRX devices and spend as 
much time as possible mocking up different scenarios. Since you're 
already JNCIE-M, I think you could do SEC preparation in as little as 3 
months if you're focused.


Also you can check out my blog for more info on the SEC exam:

http://www.shortestpathfirst.net/2011/09/12/preparation-tips-for-the-jncie-sec-exam/

Good luck!

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 2:02 PM, Devin Kennedy wrote:

Hi Stefan:

Do you also have a recommendation for study materials for the JNCIP-SP
(taking to renew JNCIE-M) and also for study towards the JNCIE-SEC exams?


Hi Devin,

The same materials that you would use to prepare for JNCIE are also the 
ones you would use to prepare for the JNCIP written exam, so JCOS, JMV, 
JMR, and AJSPR. I would say the majority of the exam is based on routing 
so your main focus should be on the AJSPR materials - lot of BGP, IS-IS 
and OSPF questions.


If you're already JNCIE-M, I would say a light review would be 
sufficient - the passing score is pretty low so I don't think you'll 
have any problems.


For the SEC exam, I would recommend JSEC, AJSEC, JIPS, and JUTM, as well 
as a cover-to-cover read of the 'Junos Security' book by Rob Cameron, 
Tim Eberhard, et. al. Get your hands on some SRX devices and spend as 
much time as possible mocking up different scenarios. Since you're 
already JNCIE-M, I think you could do SEC preparation in as little as 3 
months if you're focused.


Also you can check out my blog for more info on the SEC exam:

http://www.shortestpathfirst.net/2011/09/12/preparation-tips-for-the-jncie-sec-exam/

Good luck!

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Devin Kennedy]

Hi Stefan:

Do you also have a recommendation for study materials for the JNCIP-SP
(taking to renew JNCIE-M) and also for study towards the JNCIE-SEC exams?  



Best Regards,

Devin J Kennedy
Juniper Engineer - AT&T Labs
dk5...@att.com


-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Fouant
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:57 AM
To: bruno.juniper
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

On 4/23/2012 11:26 PM, bruno.juniper wrote:
> Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper

Your best bet is to go through all the labs in JIR, AJSPR, JMV, JMR, and
JCOS. Mock these up and go through as many different scenarios as possible.
Also, the labs in Harry Reynolds' JNCIP and JNCIE Study Guides are still
good to go through as they are somewhat representative of the type of stuff
you will seen on the exam.

In addition, have you taken our JNCIE-SP bootcamp? You can order these
materials from our OnFullfillment website.

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 11:17 AM, bruno.juniper wrote:

ths stefan,


i have do most of lab in cjnr /ajnr/ advance vpn/ jncip lab guide /jncie lab 
guide and Proteus Networks workbook. didn't take jncie-sp bootcamp. it's too 
expensive for me.


Bruno,

The CJNR/AJNR/Advanced VPN are all really old and have been updated with 
a lot of additional material that you are likely to see on the exam. The 
material you have will leave a lot of gaps so I don't recommend using 
that material as your sole means of preparation.


I would honestly take a look at our Onfulfillment website and get some 
of the updated materials and study those before sitting the exam:


http://www.onfulfillment.com/JuniperTrainingPublic/WelcomePublic.aspx?sid=323

Honestly, I would suggest maybe postponing your lab attempt while you 
take a look at the updated materials. It's a really tough exam and you 
will have a lot of gaps if you don't have the latest materials.


Cheers,

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Serge Vautour]

Note that the MX requires an MS-DPC card in order to to NetFlow v9.

Serge



 From: Doug Hanks 
To: Peter ; "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" 
 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:41:24 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006
 
The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.

Thank you,

-- 
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter"  wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
>1.
>- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
>or
>
>2. asr 9006
>- A9K-RSP-4G
>- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>- license for l3 vpn
>
>the price is almost the same. I need:
>
>- ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
>- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>- v6
>- up to 12 full bgp feed
>- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>next term
>- access to counters via snmp
>- independent control plane and data plane
>- and few others things on bgp edge
>
>which model will be better ?
>thanks for some advice
>
>regards
>Peter
>
>___
>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] Interconnect two VRFs via L2 security box with redundant path

[Clarke Morledge]

Stefan,

I was just hunting through your blog for ideas when I saw your post :-)
Thanks for jumping in.   A few responses in-line below.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Stefan Fouant wrote:

If that adjacency goes down, a simple floating static (static route w/ higher 
preference than the dynamic BGP/IS-IS route) can be used pointing to 
next-table will do the trick. No need to used Logical-Tunnels or use 
auto-export.


If my two routers were directly connected all of the time, this would be 
fine.  But I'm also thinking of the case of when there might be another L3 
hop between the two routers.   I guess I could insert another floating 
static on the third router, but that just seemed to add a little more 
complexity to me.  I was hoping for a way to just let the dynamic routing 
protocols do the work for me instead of fooling with a bunch of statics 
with filter-based forwarding.   Don't get me wrong, I like FBF.  I was 
just hoping to leverage dynamic routing more.


Of course, in your case you've got not just two VRFs but also an East and 
West path which further complicates things - why not just connect the MX West 
device into your L2 Packet Scrubber as well and keep things the same on both 
the East and West device so that you can take full advantage of two planes. 
This will keep configurations uniform regardless of whether traffic comes in 
on the East or West devices.


I should have given the reason why I do not put the L2 scrubber between 
the two routers:  conservation of fiber.  I already have fiber connecting 
the routers in different wiring centers for traffic that does not need to 
be scrubbed.   Chewing up another set of strands is much more expensive 
than simply connecting both sides of the L2 scrubber to just one router in 
the same rack.


Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Information Technology - Network Engineering
Jones Hall (Room 18)
Williamsburg VA 23187
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] SRX650 Cluster throughput

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 11:36 AM, Jeff Rooney wrote:

So I'm doing some testing with an SRX 650 cluster(11.2R6.3) and am
starting to see some odd throughput issues, being that this is my
first SRX cluster, I'm most likely overlooking something minor.

Physical setup is pretty basic, each srx has multiple links connected
into its own switch, as well as two cross connects between the pair of
SRX for control and fabric. The switches are connected with a 4 port
portchannel. All interfaces are gig and negotiated to 1000m. Switches
are catalyst 4948's, if that matters.

SRX-node0 sw0
 | |   | | |
SRX-node1 sw1

I have two servers connected into sw0, when on the same vlan iperf udp
tests show 900Mbits/sec and tcp tests show 940+Mbits/secso far so
good. Moving one box to another vlan and a seperate reth, so traffic
now traverses srx-node0...traffic plummets. Iperf udp shows
500Mbits/sec and tcp 317Mbits/sec. Prior to setting up the cluster I
tested via a single SRX and saw 900Mbits/sec+ for both tcp and udp.
Both hosts are on the same switch and traversing node0 which is also
on the same switch. Each vlan terminates on its own reth.

Any suggestions as to where to look next?


What are you using to generate traffic? Is it a single flow by any chance?

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] SRX650 Cluster throughput

[Jeff Rooney]

So running multiple flows seems to give me the same results4 tcp
based flows gives me an aggregate of ~317Mbits, udp is the same...4
flows aggregate ~500Mbit.

The two reth interfaces in use here:
root@core-rtr> show interfaces reth9 statistics
Physical interface: reth9, Enabled, Physical link is Up
  Interface index: 137, SNMP ifIndex: 596
  Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 1514, Speed: 1Gbps, BPDU Error: None,
  MAC-REWRITE Error: None, Loopback: Disabled, Source filtering: Disabled,
  Flow control: Disabled, Minimum links needed: 1, Minimum bandwidth needed: 0
  Device flags   : Present Running
  Interface flags: SNMP-Traps Internal: 0x0
  Current address: 00:10:db:ff:10:09, Hardware address: 00:10:db:ff:10:09
  Last flapped   : 2012-04-24 00:21:10 UTC (1d 01:09 ago)
  Statistics last cleared: Never
  Input rate : 0 bps (0 pps)
  Output rate: 0 bps (0 pps)
  Input errors: 0, Output errors: 0

  Logical interface reth9.0 (Index 100) (SNMP ifIndex 583)
Description: Backup VLAN
Flags: SNMP-Traps 0x0 Encapsulation: ENET2
StatisticsPacketspps Bytes  bps
Bundle:
Input :  40675689  0   605334845970
Output:   8384721  0 4386164900
Security: Zone: backup
Allowed host-inbound traffic : ping
Protocol inet, MTU: 1500
  Flags: Sendbcast-pkt-to-re
  Addresses, Flags: Is-Preferred Is-Primary
Destination: 10.2.100/24, Local: 10.2.100.1, Broadcast: 10.2.100.255

{primary:node0}
root@core-rtr> show interfaces ge-2/0/7 statistics
Physical interface: ge-2/0/7, Enabled, Physical link is Up
  Interface index: 283, SNMP ifIndex: 531
  Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 1514, Link-mode: Full-duplex, Speed: 1000mbps,
  BPDU Error: None, MAC-REWRITE Error: None, Loopback: Disabled,
  Source filtering: Disabled, Flow control: Enabled, Auto-negotiation: Enabled,
  Remote fault: Online
  Device flags   : Present Running
  Interface flags: SNMP-Traps Internal: 0x0
  Link flags : None
  CoS queues : 8 supported, 8 maximum usable queues
  Current address: 00:10:db:ff:10:07, Hardware address: 64:87:88:1c:f0:3f
  Last flapped   : 2012-04-24 03:17:27 UTC (22:15:42 ago)
  Statistics last cleared: Never
  Input rate : 0 bps (0 pps)
  Output rate: 0 bps (0 pps)
  Input errors: 0, Output errors: 0
  Active alarms  : None
  Active defects : None
  Interface transmit statistics: Disabled

  Logical interface ge-2/0/7.0 (Index 113) (SNMP ifIndex 638)
Flags: SNMP-Traps Encapsulation: ENET2
Input packets : 7167489
Output packets: 41515426
Security: Zone: Null
Protocol aenet, AE bundle: reth7.0   Link Index: 0



On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Stefan Fouant
 wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 1:01 PM, Jeff Rooney wrote:
>>
>> Single flow using iperf for all of my tests, only variation is that
>> I'm using both udp and tcp tests, and via the cluster udp seems to
>> handle better, but still only seeing 500Mbit
>
>
> Just for giggles why don't you increase your test to utilize multiple flows
> and lets see if you get different performance (this is going to be the more
> likely scenario anyways since it's unlikely you'll have a single host
> sending 900+ Mbits of traffic).
>
> Based on your results we can probably start to narrow down performance
> limitations.
>
>
> --
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
>
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 11:17 AM, bruno.juniper wrote:

ths stefan,


i have do most of lab in cjnr /ajnr/ advance vpn/ jncip lab guide /jncie lab 
guide and Proteus Networks workbook. didn't take jncie-sp bootcamp. it's too 
expensive for me.


Bruno,

The CJNR/AJNR/Advanced VPN are all really old and have been updated with 
a lot of additional material that you are likely to see on the exam. The 
material you have will leave a lot of gaps so I don't recommend using 
that material as your sole means of preparation.


I would honestly take a look at our Onfulfillment website and get some 
of the updated materials and study those before sitting the exam:


http://www.onfulfillment.com/JuniperTrainingPublic/WelcomePublic.aspx?sid=323

Honestly, I would suggest maybe postponing your lab attempt while you 
take a look at the updated materials. It's a really tough exam and you 
will have a lot of gaps if you don't have the latest materials.


Cheers,

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 11:17 AM, bruno.juniper wrote:

ths stefan,


i have do most of lab in cjnr /ajnr/ advance vpn/ jncip lab guide /jncie lab 
guide and Proteus Networks workbook. didn't take jncie-sp bootcamp. it's too 
expensive for me.


Bruno,

The CJNR/AJNR/Advanced VPN are all really old and have been updated with 
a lot of additional material that you are likely to see on the exam. The 
material you have will leave a lot of gaps so I don't recommend using 
that material as your sole means of preparation.


I would honestly take a look at our Onfulfillment website and get some 
of the updated materials and study those before sitting the exam:


http://www.onfulfillment.com/JuniperTrainingPublic/WelcomePublic.aspx?sid=323

Honestly, I would suggest maybe postponing your lab attempt while you 
take a look at the updated materials. It's a really tough exam and you 
will have a lot of gaps if you don't have the latest materials.


Cheers,

--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] SRX650 Cluster throughput

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 1:01 PM, Jeff Rooney wrote:

Single flow using iperf for all of my tests, only variation is that
I'm using both udp and tcp tests, and via the cluster udp seems to
handle better, but still only seeing 500Mbit


Just for giggles why don't you increase your test to utilize multiple 
flows and lets see if you get different performance (this is going to be 
the more likely scenario anyways since it's unlikely you'll have a 
single host sending 900+ Mbits of traffic).


Based on your results we can probably start to narrow down performance 
limitations.


--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] SRX650 Cluster throughput

[Jeff Rooney]

Single flow using iperf for all of my tests, only variation is that
I'm using both udp and tcp tests, and via the cluster udp seems to
handle better, but still only seeing 500Mbit


On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Stefan Fouant
 wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 11:36 AM, Jeff Rooney wrote:
>>
>> So I'm doing some testing with an SRX 650 cluster(11.2R6.3) and am
>> starting to see some odd throughput issues, being that this is my
>> first SRX cluster, I'm most likely overlooking something minor.
>>
>> Physical setup is pretty basic, each srx has multiple links connected
>> into its own switch, as well as two cross connects between the pair of
>> SRX for control and fabric. The switches are connected with a 4 port
>> portchannel. All interfaces are gig and negotiated to 1000m. Switches
>> are catalyst 4948's, if that matters.
>>
>> SRX-node0 sw0
>>     | |                       | | |
>> SRX-node1 sw1
>>
>> I have two servers connected into sw0, when on the same vlan iperf udp
>> tests show 900Mbits/sec and tcp tests show 940+Mbits/secso far so
>> good. Moving one box to another vlan and a seperate reth, so traffic
>> now traverses srx-node0...traffic plummets. Iperf udp shows
>> 500Mbits/sec and tcp 317Mbits/sec. Prior to setting up the cluster I
>> tested via a single SRX and saw 900Mbits/sec+ for both tcp and udp.
>> Both hosts are on the same switch and traversing node0 which is also
>> on the same switch. Each vlan terminates on its own reth.
>>
>> Any suggestions as to where to look next?
>
>
> What are you using to generate traffic? Is it a single flow by any chance?
>
> --
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
>
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Interconnect two VRFs via L2 security box with redundant path

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/24/2012 12:44 PM, Clarke Morledge wrote:

I have a design question to propose to the list. Suppose I have two VRFs
in my MX routing core. Servers connect to one VRF (South) and the
clients connect to the other VRF (North). I have a Layer2 security
packet scrubbing box for inspecting traffic between my servers and clients.

I have a sample network diagram:

http://i.imgur.com/ZuOoC.png

Here are my restrictions:

a. I need to interconnect the North and South VRFs with the Layer2
security box physically at one of my two core routers (MX East).

b. I also need to have a redundant path, preferably passing through the
other core router (MX West). In the event that the Layer2 box dies, or
if the MX East core router dies, unfortunately traffic will not get
inspected but I will still have connectivity between the North and South
VRFs via the MX West core router.

c. Traffic is forced through the Layer2 box using dynamic routing
protocols (I'd like to stay away from statics if I can). I would like to
stick with IS-IS, but I could use BGP if needed for filtering purposes.
I need to be careful not to introduce a routing loop between the two
VRFs. The redundant link on MX West needs to be properly weighted such
that it is completely passive except in the event that there is a
failure at MX East and/or the Layer2 box.

d. I have an MPLS infrastructure available in the core, so I could build
a VPLS, L2 VPN, or L3 VPN if it would help. But I do want to keep things
as simple as I can.

How would you put together such a design? How would you implement the
routing protocols between the VRFs? Would you use a logical tunnel at MX
West to form the backup connection between the two VRFs? If you use
vrf-import and vrf-export of routes (with auto-export) between the VRFs
instead of a logical tunnel, how would you properly weight the routing
information?


Clarke,

I've done designs like this before and it was always a combination of 
some dynamic routing protocol such as IS-IS or BGP between the two VRs 
across the L2 connection through the packet scrubber. This path will 
always be used so long as the adjacency remains operational.


If that adjacency goes down, a simple floating static (static route w/ 
higher preference than the dynamic BGP/IS-IS route) can be used pointing 
to next-table will do the trick. No need to used Logical-Tunnels or use 
auto-export.


Of course, in your case you've got not just two VRFs but also an East 
and West path which further complicates things - why not just connect 
the MX West device into your L2 Packet Scrubber as well and keep things 
the same on both the East and West device so that you can take full 
advantage of two planes. This will keep configurations uniform 
regardless of whether traffic comes in on the East or West devices.


--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] Interconnect two VRFs via L2 security box with redundant path

[Clarke Morledge]

I have a design question to propose to the list.  Suppose I have two VRFs in my 
MX routing core.  Servers connect to one VRF (South) and the clients connect to 
the other VRF (North).  I have a Layer2 security packet scrubbing box  for 
inspecting traffic between my servers and clients.


I have a sample network diagram:

http://i.imgur.com/ZuOoC.png

Here are my restrictions:

a. I need to interconnect the North and South VRFs with the Layer2 security box 
physically at one of my two core routers (MX East).


b. I also need to have a redundant path, preferably passing through the other 
core router (MX West).  In the event that the Layer2 box dies, or if the MX 
East core router dies, unfortunately traffic will not get inspected but I will 
still have connectivity between the North and South VRFs via the MX West core 
router.


c. Traffic is forced through the Layer2 box using dynamic routing protocols 
(I'd like to stay away from statics if I can).  I would like to stick with 
IS-IS, but I could use BGP if needed for filtering purposes. I need to be 
careful not to introduce a routing loop between the two VRFs. The redundant 
link on MX West needs to be properly weighted such that it is completely 
passive except in the event that there is a failure at MX East and/or the 
Layer2 box.


d. I have an MPLS infrastructure available in the core, so I could build a 
VPLS, L2 VPN, or L3 VPN if it would help.  But I do want to keep things as 
simple as I can.


How would you put together such a design?  How would you implement the routing 
protocols between the VRFs?  Would you use a logical tunnel at MX West to form 
the backup connection between the two VRFs?  If you use vrf-import and 
vrf-export of routes (with auto-export) between the VRFs instead of a logical 
tunnel, how would you properly weight the routing information?


Thanks.

Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Information Technology - Network Engineering
Jones Hall (Room 18)
Williamsburg VA 23187
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Doug Hanks]

The last time I looked the ASR9K still had a small FIB and tapped out at
around 500K.

Thank you,

-- 
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/24/12 8:55 AM, "Peter"  wrote:

>Hi
>
>I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:
>
>1.
>- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP,
>MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
>- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow
>v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN
>
>or
>
>2. asr 9006
>- A9K-RSP-4G
>- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
>- license for l3 vpn
>
>the price is almost the same. I need:
>
>- ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
>- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
>- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
>- v6
>- up to 12 full bgp feed
>- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
>- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times
>to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in
>next term
>- access to counters via snmp
>- independent control plane and data plane
>- and few others things on bgp edge
>
>which model will be better ?
>thanks for some advice
>
>regards
>Peter
>
>___
>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] mx240 vs asr 9006

[Peter]

Hi

I have to upgrade my bgp routers, i have budget for two options:

1.
- bundle: MX240BASE-AC-HIGH, MPC1-3D-R-B, MIC-3D-20XGE-SFP, 
MIC-3D-2XGE-XFP; configurable RE, SCB, and PEM
- better routing engine RE-S-1800X2-8G-UPG-BB + jflow license ( netflow 
v9 or ipfix) S-ACCT-JFLOW-IN


or

2. asr 9006
- A9K-RSP-4G
- A9K-MOD80-TR, 80G Modular Linecard, Packet Transport Optimized
- license for l3 vpn

the price is almost the same. I need:

- ports: from  4x10G line to  max 8x10G, line rate
- 3 virtual routers with full ip routing table v4
- 10 virtual routers with ca 10k prefix in routing table v4
- v6
- up to 12 full bgp feed
- netflow v9 or ipfix, sampling max 100/s
- define counters on logical and physical interfaces, count many times 
to the same counter, one packet could be count to different counters in 
next term

- access to counters via snmp
- independent control plane and data plane
- and few others things on bgp edge

which model will be better ?
thanks for some advice

regards
Peter

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] SRX650 Cluster throughput

[Jeff Rooney]

So I'm doing some testing with an SRX 650 cluster(11.2R6.3) and am
starting to see some odd throughput issues, being that this is my
first SRX cluster, I'm most likely overlooking something minor.

Physical setup is pretty basic, each srx has multiple links connected
into its own switch, as well as two cross connects between the pair of
SRX for control and fabric. The switches are connected with a 4 port
portchannel. All interfaces are gig and negotiated to 1000m. Switches
are catalyst 4948's, if that matters.

SRX-node0 sw0
    | |                       | | |
SRX-node1 sw1

I have two servers connected into sw0, when on the same vlan iperf udp
tests show 900Mbits/sec and tcp tests show 940+Mbits/secso far so
good. Moving one box to another vlan and a seperate reth, so traffic
now traverses srx-node0...traffic plummets. Iperf udp shows
500Mbits/sec and tcp 317Mbits/sec. Prior to setting up the cluster I
tested via a single SRX and saw 900Mbits/sec+ for both tcp and udp.
Both hosts are on the same switch and traversing node0 which is also
on the same switch. Each vlan terminates on its own reth.

Any suggestions as to where to look next?

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Kazmierczak, Tomasz (NSN - US/Irving)]

I did Juniper JNCIE-SP boot camp and can really recommend if U got a
chance.

-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of ext Xu Hu
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:24 AM
To: bruno.juniper
Cc: juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

I also think it is too expansive, lol

Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu

On 24 Apr, 2012, at 23:17, "bruno.juniper" 
wrote:

> ths stefan,
> 
> 
> i have do most of lab in cjnr /ajnr/ advance vpn/ jncip lab guide
/jncie lab guide and Proteus Networks workbook. didn't take jncie-sp
bootcamp. it's too expensive for me. 
> 
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Original --
> From:  "Stefan Fouant";
> Date:  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 10:57 PM
> To:  "bruno.juniper"; 
> Cc:  "juniper-nsp"; 
> Subject:  Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow
> 
> 
> On 4/23/2012 11:26 PM, bruno.juniper wrote:
>> Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper
> 
> Your best bet is to go through all the labs in JIR, AJSPR, JMV, JMR,
and 
> JCOS. Mock these up and go through as many different scenarios as 
> possible. Also, the labs in Harry Reynolds' JNCIP and JNCIE Study
Guides 
> are still good to go through as they are somewhat representative of
the 
> type of stuff you will seen on the exam.
> 
> In addition, have you taken our JNCIE-SP bootcamp? You can order these

> materials from our OnFullfillment website.
> 
> -- 
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
> 
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
> ___
> 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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Xu Hu]

I also think it is too expansive, lol

Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu

On 24 Apr, 2012, at 23:17, "bruno.juniper"  wrote:

> ths stefan,
> 
> 
> i have do most of lab in cjnr /ajnr/ advance vpn/ jncip lab guide /jncie lab 
> guide and Proteus Networks workbook. didn't take jncie-sp bootcamp. it's too 
> expensive for me. 
> 
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Original --
> From:  "Stefan Fouant";
> Date:  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 10:57 PM
> To:  "bruno.juniper"; 
> Cc:  "juniper-nsp"; 
> Subject:  Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow
> 
> 
> On 4/23/2012 11:26 PM, bruno.juniper wrote:
>> Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper
> 
> Your best bet is to go through all the labs in JIR, AJSPR, JMV, JMR, and 
> JCOS. Mock these up and go through as many different scenarios as 
> possible. Also, the labs in Harry Reynolds' JNCIP and JNCIE Study Guides 
> are still good to go through as they are somewhat representative of the 
> type of stuff you will seen on the exam.
> 
> In addition, have you taken our JNCIE-SP bootcamp? You can order these 
> materials from our OnFullfillment website.
> 
> -- 
> Stefan Fouant
> JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
> 
> Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
> ___
> 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] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[bruno.juniper]

ths stefan,


i have do most of lab in cjnr /ajnr/ advance vpn/ jncip lab guide /jncie lab 
guide and Proteus Networks workbook. didn't take jncie-sp bootcamp. it's too 
expensive for me. 


--
Best Regards,
Bruno




 
 
 
-- Original --
From:  "Stefan Fouant";
Date:  Tue, Apr 24, 2012 10:57 PM
To:  "bruno.juniper"; 
Cc:  "juniper-nsp"; 
Subject:  Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

 
On 4/23/2012 11:26 PM, bruno.juniper wrote:
> Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper

Your best bet is to go through all the labs in JIR, AJSPR, JMV, JMR, and 
JCOS. Mock these up and go through as many different scenarios as 
possible. Also, the labs in Harry Reynolds' JNCIP and JNCIE Study Guides 
are still good to go through as they are somewhat representative of the 
type of stuff you will seen on the exam.

In addition, have you taken our JNCIE-SP bootcamp? You can order these 
materials from our OnFullfillment website.

-- 
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] looking for jncie-sp study follow

[Stefan Fouant]

On 4/23/2012 11:26 PM, bruno.juniper wrote:

Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper


Your best bet is to go through all the labs in JIR, AJSPR, JMV, JMR, and 
JCOS. Mock these up and go through as many different scenarios as 
possible. Also, the labs in Harry Reynolds' JNCIP and JNCIE Study Guides 
are still good to go through as they are somewhat representative of the 
type of stuff you will seen on the exam.


In addition, have you taken our JNCIE-SP bootcamp? You can order these 
materials from our OnFullfillment website.


--
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-SEC, JNCIE-SP, JNCIE-ENT, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks

Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] About Juniper MX10 router performance

[Md. Jahangir Hossain]

Thanks again to all of valued member for putting valued information.
 



 From: Doug Hanks 
To: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" ; Md. Jahangir 
Hossain  
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] About Juniper MX10 router performance
 
The MX5 scaling is identical to the MX80.  The only difference is that the
MX5 restricts the physical port usage to MIC0.

3,000,000 IPv4 prefixes in the RIB.
1,000,000 IPv4 unicast in the FIB.

Thank you,

-- 
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213,  JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks


On 4/23/12 2:44 AM, "Saku Ytti"  wrote:

>On (2012-04-22 23:52 -0700), Md. Jahangir Hossain wrote:
>
>> In some of forum i found 1.6million but in juniper site i can not found
>>this information.
>
>This is certainly possible and will scale further, depending of course
>what
>other things are populated in RLDRAM. Giving exact answer might prove
>difficult.
>More than likely you'll find control-plane scaling to be insufficient
>before you'll be bothered by RDLRAM being filled.
>
>-- 
>  ++ytti
>___
>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