Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006
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] Juniper SFP's
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+juniper...@eintellego.net 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 j...@inconcepts.biz 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] Juniper SFP's
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] DOM: SNMP polling of RX power for 1 GE SFP impossible?
On (2012-04-12 12:28 +0300), Saku Ytti wrote: And maybe basic trap support, like ISIS up/down, BGP max-prefix, BGP trap (Don't give me event script and tell me it's CAEK). 11.4R2 at least appears to have proper ISIS traps now. (10.4R6 does not). -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] SRX reset BGP counter
Hey all, this might be a silly question, but how can one reset the bgp (flaps) counter on a SRX3400? Thanks in advance. flip ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006
On 04/24/2012 09:58 PM, Doug Hanks wrote: 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. I believe at the present time, inline IPFIX is IPv4-only? ___ 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 and Stefan, I am starting preparation to JNCIS-SP exam. Could you say, what books are good for this exam. Thank you in advance. 2012/4/25 Harry Reynolds ha...@juniper.net 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:35:03AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote: On 04/24/2012 09:58 PM, Doug Hanks wrote: 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. I believe at the present time, inline IPFIX is IPv4-only? I can't believe I'm about to say this but... IPv6 is listed as supported in 12.1 (released) Not tested (can't imagine why). I thought I had been told MPLS was in too, but don't see it. -- Euan Galloway ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] BGP and LDP VPLS interworking problem
Hello guys,
I am testing LDP and BGP VPLS interconnecting, the topology is below
CE1-(PE1-P4-PE2-P5--PE3)---CE3
All the router run OSPFand LDP in the core.PE1\P4\PE2 in default BGP mesh
group,PE2\P5\PE3 in another mesh group. ALL the VPLS status is ok. BUT CEs
can??t communicate each other. I am using srx210 (version12.1)to test it. I
have test BGP vpls and LDP VPLS before, no problem for them.Could anyone help
me? I have read lots of docs and can??t find anything wrong. I am pulling my
hair out.
[edit]
root@PE2# show routing-instances
vpls {
instance-type vpls;
route-distinguisher 2.2.2.2:1;
vrf-target target:65000:1;
protocols {
vpls {
site-range 10;
no-tunnel-services;
site PE2 {
site-identifier 2;
mesh-group vpls-mesh;
}
vpls-id 100;
mesh-group vpls-mesh {
local-switching;
neighbor 3.3.3.3;
}
}
}
}
[edit]
root@PE2# run show vpls connections
Layer-2 VPN connections:
(output omit)
Instance: vpls
BGP-VPLS State
Local site: PE2 (2)
connection-site Type St Time last up # Up trans
1 rmt Up Apr 25 19:15:29 2012 1
Remote PE: 1.1.1.1, Negotiated control-word: No
Incoming label: 262401, Outgoing label: 262146
Local interface: lsi.1048578, Status: Up, Encapsulation: VPLS
Description: Intf - vpls vpls local site 2 remote site 1
LDP-VPLS State
VPLS-id: 100
Mesh-group connections: vpls-mesh
Neighbor Type St Time last up # Up trans
3.3.3.3(vpls-id 100) rmt Up Apr 25 18:02:52 2012 1
Remote PE: 3.3.3.3, Negotiated control-word: No
Incoming label: 262145, Outgoing label: 262146
Negotiated PW status TLV: No
Local interface: lsi.1048576, Status: Up, Encapsulation: ETHERNET
Description: Intf - vpls vpls neighbor 3.3.3.3 vpls-id 100
[edit]
root@PE2# run show route forwarding-table family vpls
Routing table: vpls.vpls
VPLS:
DestinationType RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif
defaultperm 0rjct 537 1
lsi.1048578user 0comp 581 2
lsi.1048576user 0comp 579 2
00:0c:29:09:b2:5c/48 dynm 0 indr 262143 4
24.1.1.4 Push 262146, Push 299888(top)
558 2 ge-0/0/0.24
00:0c:29:09:b2:70/48 dynm 0 indr 262142 4
25.1.1.5 Push 262146, Push 299824(top)
577 2 ge-0/0/0.25
[edit]
root@PE1# run show route forwarding-table family vpls
Routing table: vpn-a.vpls
VPLS:
DestinationType RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif
defaultperm 0rjct 544 1
fe-0/0/5.600 user 0comp 553 2
lsi.1048578user 0comp 573 2
00:0c:29:09:b2:5c/48 dynm 0 ucst 551 3 fe-0/0/5.600
root@PE3# run show route forwarding-table family vpls
Routing table: vpn-a.vpls
VPLS:
DestinationType RtRef Next hop Type Index NhRef Netif
defaultperm 0rjct 557 1
fe-0/0/6.600 user 0comp 547 2
lsi.1049344user 0comp 572 2
00:0c:29:09:b2:70/48 dynm 0 ucst 544 3 fe-0/0/6.600
--
Best Regards,
Bruno
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SRX reset BGP counter
I've been wanting a way for the past few years ie. clear bgp neighbor x.y.z.a statistics Right now, the only way to do it is deactivate the peer and reactivate it. :/ --- Ben Boyd b...@sinatranetwork.com http://about.me/benboyd On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:35 AM, f...@flipstar.net wrote: Hey all, this might be a silly question, but how can one reset the bgp (flaps) counter on a SRX3400? Thanks in advance. flip ___ 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
Yes thanks for mentioning that. My opinion would be to use a MX480 like someone else said just due to the increased slot capacity, over the 9006 or 240. Phil On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:33 AM, brad dreisbach br...@ntt.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:31:13PM -0400, 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. You can configure the scale profile on the trident based cards to support 1M routes on RSP2. you do sacrifice some L2 scale though, iirc. default —efficient for deployments that require large Layer 2 MAC tables (up to 512,000 entries) and a relatively small number of Layer 3 routes (less than 512,000). l3 —efficient for deployments that require more Layer 3 routes (up to 1 million) and smaller Layer 2 MAC tables (less than 128,000 entries). l3xl —efficient for deployments that require a very large number of Layer 3 routes (up to 1.3 million) and minimal Layer 2 functionality. Note that the support for up to 1.3 million routes is split into IPv4 scaled support and IPv4/IPV6 scaled support. You can configure up to 1.3 million IPv4 routes, or up to 1 million IPv4 routes with 128,000 IPv6 routes. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.2/system_management/configuration/guide/b_sysman_cg42asr9k_chapter_01.html#task_3A082F6CD31D4A238070C3CD7279E67A -b Phil On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks a...@juniper.net 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 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] mx240 vs asr 9006
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:31:13PM -0400, 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. You can configure the scale profile on the trident based cards to support 1M routes on RSP2. you do sacrifice some L2 scale though, iirc. default —efficient for deployments that require large Layer 2 MAC tables (up to 512,000 entries) and a relatively small number of Layer 3 routes (less than 512,000). l3 —efficient for deployments that require more Layer 3 routes (up to 1 million) and smaller Layer 2 MAC tables (less than 128,000 entries). l3xl —efficient for deployments that require a very large number of Layer 3 routes (up to 1.3 million) and minimal Layer 2 functionality. Note that the support for up to 1.3 million routes is split into IPv4 scaled support and IPv4/IPV6 scaled support. You can configure up to 1.3 million IPv4 routes, or up to 1 million IPv4 routes with 128,000 IPv6 routes. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4.2/system_management/configuration/guide/b_sysman_cg42asr9k_chapter_01.html#task_3A082F6CD31D4A238070C3CD7279E67A -b Phil On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Doug Hanks a...@juniper.net 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 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 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] GRE between EX3200
Hi all, Has anyone had any luck with GRE tunnels on the EX3200? I've found an old thread from 2010 that seems to suggest that the functionality has drifted in and out of support on various versions of JunOS, and was roadmapped for permanent inclusion... Thanks, Paul _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Agencyport Software Ltd. Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed by Websense Email Security software in conjunction with virus detection software. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SRX reset BGP counter
Hey Ben, On 25.04.2012 14:31, Ben Boyd wrote: I've been wanting a way for the past few years ie. clear bgp neighbor x.y.z.a statistics so the SRX's are still on their way ... :-/ Right now, the only way to do it is deactivate the peer and reactivate it. :/ --- Ben Boyd b...@sinatranetwork.com mailto:b...@sinatranetwork.com http://about.me/benboyd On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:35 AM, f...@flipstar.net mailto:f...@flipstar.net wrote: Hey all, this might be a silly question, but how can one reset the bgp (flaps) counter on a SRX3400? Thanks in advance. flip ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net mailto: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] GRE between EX3200
Hello, GRE support in EX in 12.1, Rgds, Christian Le 25/04/2012 16:15, paul.ma...@agencyport.com a écrit : Hi all, Has anyone had any luck with GRE tunnels on the EX3200? I've found an old thread from 2010 that seems to suggest that the functionality has drifted in and out of support on various versions of JunOS, and was roadmapped for permanent inclusion... Thanks, Paul _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Agencyport Software Ltd. Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed by Websense Email Security software in conjunction with virus detection software. ___ 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] GRE between EX3200
This is in the release notes for 12.1 now. Generic routing encapsulation—EX3200 and EX4200 switches now support generic routing encapsulation (GRE), a tunneling protocol to transport packets over a network. You can use GRE tunneling services to encapsulate any network layer protocol over any other network layer protocol. Acting as a tunnel source router, the switch encapsulates a payload packet that is to be transported through a tunnel to a destination network. The switch first encapsulates the payload packet in a GRE packet and then encapsulates the resulting GRE packet in a delivery protocol. A switch performing the role of a tunnel remote router extracts the tunneled packet and forwards the packet to the destination network. GRE tunnels can be used to connect noncontiguous networks and to provide options for networks that contain protocols with limited hop counts. [See Understanding Generic Routing Encapsulation .] From: paul.ma...@agencyport.com [paul.ma...@agencyport.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:15 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] GRE between EX3200 Hi all, Has anyone had any luck with GRE tunnels on the EX3200? I've found an old thread from 2010 that seems to suggest that the functionality has drifted in and out of support on various versions of JunOS, and was roadmapped for permanent inclusion... Thanks, Paul _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Agencyport Software Ltd. Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed by Websense Email Security software in conjunction with virus detection software. ___ 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] VPN configuration | Juniper J router and cisco router
Le 18/04/2012 09:19, osamh hammoudeh a écrit : hi all , i had configured vpn site to site with J router and cisco router 1800 . problem : the tunnel did not go up till i do ping from cisco router , if it do ping from the J router the tunnel did not go up. check phase2 SA when tunnel is up and try to find the difference with your phase2 config. (I assume phase2 error, but it's not clear in your message). i check all the parameter . BR osama ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper SFP's
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+juniper...@eintellego.net wrote: 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? At one point I was using LX optics from one platform in another (I think it was MX in SRX, but that could be backwards). They worked fine, but DOM was showing really odd values (33 volts, module temperature of several hundred degrees, etc.). The counters looked normal once I switched them out for the right optics. They were third party optics but they were programmed for those platforms. I don't have any Juniper optics in that variety so I don't know whether they'd behave the same. 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. I've had good luck with Approved Optics. I try to stick with Juniper on devices that have a lot of optics (since it would be a pain to change them all out if JTAC tried to blame the optics for a problem), but I might change that strategy if I had enough devices to warrant sparing Juniper optics (for JTAC-compatible changeouts) in appropriate quantities. :w ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Únete a mi red en LinkedIn
LinkedIn alaerte vidali ha solicitado añadirte como contacto en LinkedIn: -- Me gustaría añadirte a mi red profesional en LinkedIn. Aceptar invitación de alaerte vidali http://www.linkedin.com/e/u96119-h1gu8lkg-52/XqZSB0oknt5cTYQCxwU5LkoQzUifoQRJSaUSlk19WH/blk/I2192685899_3/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYPnPAVe3kUdz8Vcj99bSZAj4Z6jmd2bP4Scj8VcPkPe3oLrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/?hs=falsetok=1qwTbXQ9MKCRc1 Ver invitación de alaerte vidali http://www.linkedin.com/e/u96119-h1gu8lkg-52/XqZSB0oknt5cTYQCxwU5LkoQzUifoQRJSaUSlk19WH/blk/I2192685899_3/3dvejAUdjwSczANcAALqnpPbOYWrSlI/svi/?hs=falsetok=0daduvlH8KCRc1 -- ¿Por qué puede ser una buena idea conectar con alaerte vidali? Los contactos de alaerte vidali podrían serte útiles: Tras aceptar la invitación de alaerte vidali, revisa los contactos de alaerte vidali para ver a quién más conoces y a quién te gustaría que te presentaran. Forjar contactos puede crear oportunidades futuras. -- (c) 2012, LinkedIn Corporation ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Únete a mi red en LinkedIn
LinkedIn alaerte vidali ha solicitado añadirte como contacto en LinkedIn: -- Me gustaría añadirte a mi red profesional en LinkedIn. Aceptar invitación de alaerte vidali http://www.linkedin.com/e/u96119-h1gu9vop-2v/XqZSB0oknt5cTYQCxwU5LkoQzUifoQRJSaUSlk19WH/blk/I2192687999_3/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYPnPAVejsUdz8Vcj99bSZAj4Z6jmd2bP4Scj8VcPkPe3oLrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/?hs=falsetok=0b5KOZQU0LCRc1 Ver invitación de alaerte vidali http://www.linkedin.com/e/u96119-h1gu9vop-2v/XqZSB0oknt5cTYQCxwU5LkoQzUifoQRJSaUSlk19WH/blk/I2192687999_3/3dvejAVdPwSczANcAALqnpPbOYWrSlI/svi/?hs=falsetok=1NCJZlk-gLCRc1 -- ¿Por qué puede ser una buena idea conectar con alaerte vidali? Los contactos de alaerte vidali podrían serte útiles: Tras aceptar la invitación de alaerte vidali, revisa los contactos de alaerte vidali para ver a quién más conoces y a quién te gustaría que te presentaran. Forjar contactos puede crear oportunidades futuras. -- (c) 2012, LinkedIn Corporation ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] ICMP duplication on VRRP between Cisco and Juniper
Hello, I'm in the process of testing a migration of our core network from a pair of Cisco 6509 to a pair of MX960. Between the MX and 6509 is a pair of aggregation switch (Arista running in MLAG to be specific) in a bow-tie configuration. I converted all the 6509s svi interfaces facing the servers into VRRP and then join the MXes into that VRRP VID and essentially have four physical address and 1 virtual-address as a layer3 router for around 60 VLANs. This is working fine but recently I discovered that when added a new VRRP interface on both the MX and 6509, it would cause _all_ other VLANs to generate occasional ICMP duplicates but it's repeatable. Disabling this VRRP interface on the Juniper side resolve this issue. Moving this new VRRP into a new VID also resolve the issue. I've already opened a case with Juniper but it's not going anywhere yet and just want to see if anyone else seeing similar issues? thanks, -bn 0216331C ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper SFP's
On 25/04/2012, at 4:53 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: 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. One of my clients has informed me that 11.4R2 appears to fix the link up issue for some generic Copper SFPs. Spectacularly undocumented of course, but if you don't mind living on the bleeding edge, give it a go. Ben ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
