Re: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs
You could use the install command under the LSP on the ingress PE (which is somewhat manual), or you could change from OSPF to BGP on the CMTS... -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of James Ashton Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:07 PM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs I have an interesting situation that has me stumped for the moment. I have an OSPF speaking device (ARRIS CMTS) hanging off from an EX Switch. That switch is uplinked to an MX480 which is part of the network core. It has several paths into it from rest of the network. From several major traffic centers in the network I have 3 LSPs created to the MX480. I am running mpls traffic-engineering mpls-forwarding throughout the network. As the end users hanging off the CMTS are advertised onto the network via OSPF, and I cannot terminate LSPs on the CMTS, the traffic to these users is not being forwarded over the LSPs. I have tested enabling ospf traffic-engineering shortcuts but that is breaking several paths in the network to legacy areas with odd configs. My question is basically, how can I get this traffic into these LSPs in way that is more manageable at scale than a pile of static routes. I hope the above is clear, I am low on Caffeine at the moment. Thank you in advance for any help/ideas. James ___ 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] L2ALM errors on SRX?
I've just started dumping syslog on my permanent lab devices at home, and the SRX210 is regularly throwing this: L2ALM: trying master connection, status 61, attempt 5000 The attempt increases, but the message is only logged very rarely (this is shortly after a reboot). I now see this on 11.4R2.14 11.4R6.5, but can't find any hits searching for it, other then one KB article which indicates it's perhaps VPLS related: http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=contentid=KB22637 Has anyone seen this? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 VC PFE crashes
Hi, ...on Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:55:36PM +0100, Dennis Krul | Tilaa wrote: So that means thousands of MAC, ARP and v6 neighbour entries in the PFE database (but nowhere near the supported limit of 16k entries). 16k doesn't seem realistic as soon as v6 is involved. As far as I have heard, the EX4200 on the network for an event I recently attended went down with slightly more than 1000 v6 ND entries... In the end they had to move all L3 v6 stuff off those switches. Alex. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs
Is it all one OSPF area or is the CMTS in an area other than 0? If the MX480 is an ABR you can restrict the OSPF routes and originate them on the MX480 as BGP instead using aggregate statements. Phil From: James Ashton Sent: 1/17/2013 11:07 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs I have an interesting situation that has me stumped for the moment. I have an OSPF speaking device (ARRIS CMTS) hanging off from an EX Switch. That switch is uplinked to an MX480 which is part of the network core. It has several paths into it from rest of the network. From several major traffic centers in the network I have 3 LSPs created to the MX480. I am running mpls traffic-engineering mpls-forwarding throughout the network. As the end users hanging off the CMTS are advertised onto the network via OSPF, and I cannot terminate LSPs on the CMTS, the traffic to these users is not being forwarded over the LSPs. I have tested enabling ospf traffic-engineering shortcuts but that is breaking several paths in the network to legacy areas with odd configs. My question is basically, how can I get this traffic into these LSPs in way that is more manageable at scale than a pile of static routes. I hope the above is clear, I am low on Caffeine at the moment. Thank you in advance for any help/ideas. James ___ 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] Traffic balancing over LSPs
Phil, Thanks, This is an interesting idea. Not something I had though of. Seams like a logical solution though. Ill take a look at it. Thanks James - Original Message - From: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com To: James Ashton ja...@gitflorida.com, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:49:21 AM Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs Is it all one OSPF area or is the CMTS in an area other than 0? If the MX480 is an ABR you can restrict the OSPF routes and originate them on the MX480 as BGP instead using aggregate statements. Phil From: James Ashton Sent: 1/17/2013 11:07 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs I have an interesting situation that has me stumped for the moment. I have an OSPF speaking device (ARRIS CMTS) hanging off from an EX Switch. That switch is uplinked to an MX480 which is part of the network core. It has several paths into it from rest of the network. From several major traffic centers in the network I have 3 LSPs created to the MX480. I am running mpls traffic-engineering mpls-forwarding throughout the network. As the end users hanging off the CMTS are advertised onto the network via OSPF, and I cannot terminate LSPs on the CMTS, the traffic to these users is not being forwarded over the LSPs. I have tested enabling ospf traffic-engineering shortcuts but that is breaking several paths in the network to legacy areas with odd configs. My question is basically, how can I get this traffic into these LSPs in way that is more manageable at scale than a pile of static routes. I hope the above is clear, I am low on Caffeine at the moment. Thank you in advance for any help/ideas. James ___ 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] Traffic balancing over LSPs
All, Just to clarify a few things, The destination is not in inet.3. I do not have a direct LSP to the destination and cannot create one (The destination doesn't support MPLS nor does it support BGP) The show route output is: jashton@cr01-re0 show route xx.xxx.xx.x/24 inet.0: 448173 destinations, 3298320 routes (445123 active, 39 holddown, 465440 hidden) @ = Routing Use Only, # = Forwarding Use Only + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both xx.xxx.xx.x/24 *[OSPF/150] 1d 12:35:24, metric 20, tag 0 to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-4/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 01:03:59, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:17:07, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae3.0 [BGP/170] 6d 18:57:09, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:03:11, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:02:45, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:18:02, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-4/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 17:40:10, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 2d 13:54:44, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae6.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:20:12, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-4/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 17:31:28, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 17:40:12, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 inet.3: 1232 destinations, 1248 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 1232 hidden) - Original Message - From: Colby Barth cba...@juniper.net To: James Ashton ja...@gitflorida.com Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 9:31:51 AM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs James- Could you possibly send the output of 'show route x.x.x.x/y' for one of the destinations that you think should resolve over the LSP? I suspect that this destinations are not in inet3 for some reason. -Colby On Jan 18, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: Is it all one OSPF area or is the CMTS in an area other than 0? If the MX480 is an ABR you can restrict the OSPF routes and originate them on the MX480 as BGP instead using aggregate statements. Phil From: James Ashton Sent: 1/17/2013 11:07 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs I have an interesting situation that has me stumped for the moment. I have an OSPF speaking device (ARRIS CMTS) hanging off from an EX Switch. That switch is uplinked to an MX480 which is part of the network core. It has several paths into it from rest of the network. From several major traffic centers in the network I have 3 LSPs created to the MX480. I am running mpls traffic-engineering mpls-forwarding throughout the network. As the end users hanging off the CMTS are advertised onto the network via OSPF, and I cannot terminate LSPs on the CMTS, the traffic to these users is not being forwarded over the LSPs. I have tested enabling ospf traffic-engineering shortcuts but that is breaking several paths in the network to legacy areas with odd configs. My question is basically, how can I get this traffic into these LSPs in way that is more manageable at scale than a pile of static routes. I hope the above is clear, I am low on Caffeine at the moment. Thank you in advance for any help/ideas. James ___ 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] L2ALM errors on SRX?
You can disable his process if you so desire: aarseniev@dale show chassis hardware Hardware inventory: Item Version Part number Serial number Description Chassis SRX210h-p-m Routing Engine REV 30 750-024364 RE-SRX210H-P-M FPC 0FPC PIC 0 2xGE,6xFE,1x3G,2xFXS,2xFXO ANNEX REV 04 711-028410 Power Supply 0 aarseniev@dale edit Entering configuration mode [edit] aarseniev@dale# run show system processes extensive | grep l2a 1066 root 1 760 14160K 4956K select 0 31:10 0.00% l2ald [edit] aarseniev@dale# set system processes l2-learning disable [edit] aarseniev@dale# commit commit complete [edit] aarseniev@dale# run show system processes extensive | grep l2a [edit] aarseniev@dale# - Original Message - From: Julien Goodwin jgood...@studio442.com.au To: juniper-nsp juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:53 PM Subject: [j-nsp] L2ALM errors on SRX? ___ 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] Traffic balancing over LSPs
The dest prefix needs to resolve over the LSP. IGP short-cuts is an easy way to make that happen and should work for you but I see you tried that already and had some issue. I would suggest trying to understand why igp shortcuts breaks something else. You can also use a rib-group on the LSP head-end to populate inet3 as needed. -cb On Jan 18, 2013, at 10:11 AM, James Ashton wrote: All, Just to clarify a few things, The destination is not in inet.3. I do not have a direct LSP to the destination and cannot create one (The destination doesn't support MPLS nor does it support BGP) The show route output is: jashton@cr01-re0 show route xx.xxx.xx.x/24 inet.0: 448173 destinations, 3298320 routes (445123 active, 39 holddown, 465440 hidden) @ = Routing Use Only, # = Forwarding Use Only + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both xx.xxx.xx.x/24 *[OSPF/150] 1d 12:35:24, metric 20, tag 0 to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-4/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 01:03:59, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:17:07, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae3.0 [BGP/170] 6d 18:57:09, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:03:11, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:02:45, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:18:02, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-4/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 17:40:10, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 2d 13:54:44, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via ae6.0 [BGP/170] 6d 19:20:12, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-4/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 17:31:28, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 [BGP/170] 6d 17:40:12, MED 20, localpref 100, from xx.xxx.xx.x AS path: I to xx.xxx.xx.x via xe-5/2/0.0 inet.3: 1232 destinations, 1248 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 1232 hidden) - Original Message - From: Colby Barth cba...@juniper.net To: James Ashton ja...@gitflorida.com Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 9:31:51 AM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs James- Could you possibly send the output of 'show route x.x.x.x/y' for one of the destinations that you think should resolve over the LSP? I suspect that this destinations are not in inet3 for some reason. -Colby On Jan 18, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Phil Bedard wrote: Is it all one OSPF area or is the CMTS in an area other than 0? If the MX480 is an ABR you can restrict the OSPF routes and originate them on the MX480 as BGP instead using aggregate statements. Phil From: James Ashton Sent: 1/17/2013 11:07 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs I have an interesting situation that has me stumped for the moment. I have an OSPF speaking device (ARRIS CMTS) hanging off from an EX Switch. That switch is uplinked to an MX480 which is part of the network core. It has several paths into it from rest of the network. From several major traffic centers in the network I have 3 LSPs created to the MX480. I am running mpls traffic-engineering mpls-forwarding throughout the network. As the end users hanging off the CMTS are advertised onto the network via OSPF, and I cannot terminate LSPs on the CMTS, the traffic to these users is not being forwarded over the LSPs. I have tested enabling ospf traffic-engineering shortcuts but that is breaking several paths in the network to legacy areas with odd configs. My question is basically, how can I get this traffic into these LSPs in way that is more manageable at scale than a pile of static routes. I hope the above is clear, I am low on Caffeine at the moment. Thank you in advance for any help/ideas. James ___ 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] Traffic balancing over LSPs
This is the way we (and many others) run our core network, there are very few IGP routes other than loopbacks and interface addresses. If you need an example let me know but the main command is area-range x.x.x.x/x restrict. Phil From: James Ashton Sent: 1/18/2013 10:13 To: Phil Bedard Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs Phil, Thanks, This is an interesting idea. Not something I had though of. Seams like a logical solution though. Ill take a look at it. Thanks James - Original Message - From: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com To: James Ashton ja...@gitflorida.com, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:49:21 AM Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs Is it all one OSPF area or is the CMTS in an area other than 0? If the MX480 is an ABR you can restrict the OSPF routes and originate them on the MX480 as BGP instead using aggregate statements. Phil From: James Ashton Sent: 1/17/2013 11:07 To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Traffic balancing over LSPs I have an interesting situation that has me stumped for the moment. I have an OSPF speaking device (ARRIS CMTS) hanging off from an EX Switch. That switch is uplinked to an MX480 which is part of the network core. It has several paths into it from rest of the network. From several major traffic centers in the network I have 3 LSPs created to the MX480. I am running mpls traffic-engineering mpls-forwarding throughout the network. As the end users hanging off the CMTS are advertised onto the network via OSPF, and I cannot terminate LSPs on the CMTS, the traffic to these users is not being forwarded over the LSPs. I have tested enabling ospf traffic-engineering shortcuts but that is breaking several paths in the network to legacy areas with odd configs. My question is basically, how can I get this traffic into these LSPs in way that is more manageable at scale than a pile of static routes. I hope the above is clear, I am low on Caffeine at the moment. Thank you in advance for any help/ideas. James ___ 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] Multicast IGMP filter
On 1/18/2013 2:37 AM, Riccardo S wrote: Hi I’ve an IGMP filter applied to some interfaces and done in this way: set protocols igmp interface gr-0/0/0.11 group-policy IGMP-test-B This filter is needed to avoid the join report from the remote CPE for none group otherwise not explicitly permitted. Here the policy: set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B from route-filter 239.239.239.239/32 exact set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B from route-filter 239.239.233.233/32 exact set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B then accept set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term LAST then reject My question is: my customer uses IGMPv3, can I also filter the source of the group to be permitted ? I’ve done in this way: set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B from route-filter 239.239.239.239/32 exact set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B from route-filter 239.239.233.233/32 exact set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B from source-address-filter 10.1.1.1 exact set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term PAYTV-FEED-B then accept set policy-options policy-statement IGMP-test-B term LAST then reject But is not working since my customer use IGMP v2 (I guesS), I always get the flow also from other sources... Is there a way to filter the source with IGMPv2 ? Or is there another way to avoid my customer to get the flow from a source not permitted ? Any advice ? Tks ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp Since your client isn't using IGMPv3 then they are always going to see every source for a group. I guess your customer can't move to IGMPv3? Have you tried a simple firewall filter for the sources you don't want? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] SRX240H vs SRX240H2
Hi What is difference between SRX240H and SRX240H2 except doubled memory/flash. I'm mostly interested are CPUs are same. Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Default Delay Buffer On Channelized T3
*Hi Experts:* * * *I've been reading the following doc, and am having a hard time figuring it out.* * * http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos93/swconfig-cos/configuring-large-delay-buffers-for-slower-interfaces.html * * *I have the following config on a channelized T3 (note that q-pic-large-buffer IS enabled for the PIC).* set chassis fpc 0 pic 1 q-pic-large-buffer large-scale set interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 mtu 1504 set interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 clocking internal set interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 encapsulation ppp set interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 t3-options compatibility-mode digital-link subrate 44.2Mb set interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 t3-options payload-scrambler set interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 unit 0 family inet address x.x.x.x/x set class-of-service interfaces t3-0/2/0:4 scheduler-map SCHEDULER_MAP set class-of-service scheduler-maps SCHEDULER_MAP forwarding-class best-effort scheduler BEST_EFFORT set class-of-service scheduler-maps SCHEDULER_MAP forwarding-class assured-forwarding scheduler ASSURED_FORWARDING set class-of-service scheduler-maps SCHEDULER_MAP forwarding-class expedited-forwarding scheduler EXPEDITED_FORWARDING set class-of-service scheduler-maps SCHEDULER_MAP forwarding-class network-control scheduler NETWORK_CONTROL set class-of-service schedulers EXPEDITED_FORWARDING transmit-rate percent 10 set class-of-service schedulers EXPEDITED_FORWARDING buffer-size percent 10 set class-of-service schedulers EXPEDITED_FORWARDING priority high set class-of-service schedulers ASSURED_FORWARDING transmit-rate percent 10 set class-of-service schedulers ASSURED_FORWARDING buffer-size percent 10 set class-of-service schedulers ASSURED_FORWARDING priority low set class-of-service schedulers NETWORK_CONTROL transmit-rate percent 5 set class-of-service schedulers NETWORK_CONTROL buffer-size percent 5 set class-of-service schedulers NETWORK_CONTROL priority low set class-of-service schedulers BEST_EFFORT transmit-rate remainder set class-of-service schedulers BEST_EFFORT buffer-size remainder set class-of-service schedulers BEST_EFFORT priority low *Juniper says:* When you include the q-pic-large-buffer statement in the configuration, the larger buffer is transparently available for allocation to scheduler queues. The larger buffer maximum varies by interface type, as shown in Table 31http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos93/swconfig-cos/configuring-large-delay-buffers-for-slower-interfaces.html#id-11188734 . With Large Buffer Sizes Enabled Channelized T3 and channelized OC3 DLCIs—Maximum sizes vary by shaping rate: With shaping rate from 64,000 through 255,999 bps 4,000,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 256,000 through 511,999 bps 2,000,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 512,000 through 1,023,999 bps 1,000,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 1,024,000 through 2,048,000 bps 500,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 2,048,001 bps through 10 Mbps 400,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 10,000,001 bps through 20 Mbps 300,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 20,000,001 bps through 30 Mbps 200,000 microseconds With shaping rate from 30,000,001 bps through 40 Mbps 150,000 microseconds With shaping rate up to 40,000,001 bps and above 100,000 microseconds *So, my shaping rate is greater than 40Mbps, so it looks like the maximum delay buffer for me is 100,000 microseconds.* * * *My questions:* *1. Is the 100,000 microseconds a limit per scheduler, or for the entire interface. For example, if I allocate 100,000 microseconds temporal buffer to BE, is nothing left for anything else?* *2. It sounds like the 100,000 is the max you CAN configure. What is the default delay buffer if you only configure the scheduler above? * *3. Does having remainder affect the delay buffer calculation? I'm assuming it would, just not sure how.* *4. Is there any way I can see what the actual delay buffer setting is on a given scheduler for a given interface?* *5. If I increase it to the maximum, will doing so affect other channelized T3s on the same PIC? Am I pulling from one of them when I configure a larger value?* * * *Hopefully this makes sense.* * * *Thanks!* * * * * ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Any word on MX80 MS-DPC?
This product was slated to be released in 2012 according to a few KB docs on juniper.net, but 2012 has come and gone without the release of some sort of MS-DPC card. Anyone know if this has been killed off or if it will actually ship in 2013? TIA. -richard ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SRX240H vs SRX240H2
Same specs, just a memory upgrade. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Robert Hass robh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi What is difference between SRX240H and SRX240H2 except doubled memory/flash. I'm mostly interested are CPUs are same. Rob ___ 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] Any word on MX80 MS-DPC?
MS-MIC, still going to happen, along with MS-MPC. Stay tuned. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Richard Hesse richard.he...@weebly.com wrote: This product was slated to be released in 2012 according to a few KB docs on juniper.net, but 2012 has come and gone without the release of some sort of MS-DPC card. Anyone know if this has been killed off or if it will actually ship in 2013? TIA. -richard ___ 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] Any word on MX80 MS-DPC?
Interesting. My ms-dpc were very pricy. It'll be interesting to see a price on that one. Will On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Richard Hesse richard.he...@weebly.com wrote: This product was slated to be released in 2012 according to a few KB docs on juniper.net, but 2012 has come and gone without the release of some sort of MS-DPC card. Anyone know if this has been killed off or if it will actually ship in 2013? TIA. -richard ___ 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] mLDP
Hi folks. New company, so haven't had a chance to play with Multicast again, yet. Anyone on the list deployed mLDP, particularly in an NG-MVPN scenario with Cisco? Thanks. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] SRX240H vs SRX240H2
I always thought the SRX240H was the memory upgraded version to the 240B (aka base). The 240H2 I believed has the memory upgrade and a faster (possibly just overclocked?) processor. Perhaps I am incorrect though. The H2 line is pretty new and I haven't touched one yet to compare. On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, David Kotlerewsky webnet...@gmail.com wrote: Same specs, just a memory upgrade. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Robert Hass robh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi What is difference between SRX240H and SRX240H2 except doubled memory/flash. I'm mostly interested are CPUs are same. Rob ___ 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] SRX240H vs SRX240H2
SRX240B = 1Gb RAM - only 512mb RAM accessible, can be upgraded to 240H SRX240H = 1Gb RAM SRX240B2 = 2Gb RAM - only 1Gb RAM accessible, can be upgraded to 240H2 SRX240H2 = 2Gb RAM Processor and everything else is apparently the same. When distributors run out of Series 1, you wont be able to buy them... and since they are the same price, why would you want to? From what I understand, the reason for the upgrade is that the UTM was getting very memory intensive and needed the extra space to work properly. ...Skeeve * * *Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd ske...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego ; http://twitter.com/networkceoau linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Brocade - Cloud - Check out our Juniper promotion website! eintellego.mx Free Apple products during this promotion!!! On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Tim Eberhard xmi...@gmail.com wrote: I always thought the SRX240H was the memory upgraded version to the 240B (aka base). The 240H2 I believed has the memory upgrade and a faster (possibly just overclocked?) processor. Perhaps I am incorrect though. The H2 line is pretty new and I haven't touched one yet to compare. On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, David Kotlerewsky webnet...@gmail.com wrote: Same specs, just a memory upgrade. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Robert Hass robh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi What is difference between SRX240H and SRX240H2 except doubled memory/flash. I'm mostly interested are CPUs are same. Rob ___ 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
