date:20140806

[j-nsp] ex8216 FPC Cpu high

2014-08-06 Thread Suginto Hung

Hi guys,

I use ex8216 with firmware version 11.4R8.5.
Now all the fpc cpu usage is always almost 100% :

 Temp  CPU Utilization (%)   MemoryUtilization (%)
Slot State(C)  Total  Interrupt  DRAM (MB) Heap Buffer
  0  Online24100  0   10240 44
  1  Empty
  2  Empty
  3  Empty
  4  Empty
  5  Empty
  6  Empty
  7  Empty
  8  Empty
  9  Empty
 10  Empty
 11  Empty
 12  Empty
 13  Empty
 14  Empty
 15  Online29100  0   10240 44

Does anyone have idea what is the problem?

Thanks in advance.

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

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Ben Dale

I believe this to be the case as well - when you run a mixed-mode virtual 
chassis (45/42) you end up moving the entire chassis to the lowest common 
denominator (45xx) and reducing your ARP table size down to 8K along with 
associated routing entries .

There's a nice side-by-side of the whole range here:

http://www.juniper.net/fragment.do?xmlPath=/cn/zh/products-services/switching/ex-series/modules/product-comparison.xml&xslPath=/shared/xsl/product-compare/compare.xsl&compPP=true&height=300

Ben

On 7 Aug 2014, at 3:07 am, Tyler Christiansen  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Paul S.  wrote:
> 
>> That lower arp limit is precisely why we're looking at the 4300, though.
>> 
>> Which, by the way, does anyone happen to know if the arp limit stays the
>> same when the 4200s are put into VC mode -- or do they increase at all?
>> 
> 
> I believe ARP is handled by the RE, so in a virtual chassis, the ARP limit
> would be the same.  I could be wrong, though.
> 
> --tc
> 
> 
> 
>> On 8/6/2014 午後 10:31, Scott Granados wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 on the 4200.
>>> 
>>> Had very good luck with the 4200 series.  Also had good luck with the
>>> 4300 but there were some bugs.  In a basic operation mode though they are
>>> quite stable.  That being said I was really pleased with the 4200 and you
>>> might want to check them out assuming the lower arp limit isn’t an issue.
>>> 
>>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Yucong Sun  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before.  ex4200 releases is
 pretty
 rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.
 
 Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its
 own
 ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you
 better failure tolerances compare to a single core.
 
 
 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha <
 giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote:
 
 we are using ex4300 with the last release available
> 
> the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe
> 
> it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems
> 
> sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in
> jtac
> to try solve it
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger <
>> juniper-...@ml.karotte.org>
>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> * Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
>> 
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
>>> hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
>>> 
>>> Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
>>> on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
>>> find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
>>> since launch.
>>> 
>> I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
>> for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/
> information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/
> release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf
> 
>> There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
>> how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
>> because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
>> (Broadcom).
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Sebastian
>> 
>> --
>> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0
>> B9CE)
>> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE
>> THE
>> 
> SCYTHE.
> 
>>   -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
>> ___
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Tyler Christiansen | Technical Operations*
> tyler @adap.tv  | www.adap.tv
> *m :* 864.346.4095
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-ns

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Tyler Christiansen

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Paul S.  wrote:

> That lower arp limit is precisely why we're looking at the 4300, though.
>
> Which, by the way, does anyone happen to know if the arp limit stays the
> same when the 4200s are put into VC mode -- or do they increase at all?
>

I believe ARP is handled by the RE, so in a virtual chassis, the ARP limit
would be the same.  I could be wrong, though.

--tc



> On 8/6/2014 午後 10:31, Scott Granados wrote:
>
>> +1 on the 4200.
>>
>> Had very good luck with the 4200 series.  Also had good luck with the
>> 4300 but there were some bugs.  In a basic operation mode though they are
>> quite stable.  That being said I was really pleased with the 4200 and you
>> might want to check them out assuming the lower arp limit isn’t an issue.
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Yucong Sun  wrote:
>>
>>  I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before.  ex4200 releases is
>>> pretty
>>> rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.
>>>
>>> Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its
>>> own
>>> ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you
>>> better failure tolerances compare to a single core.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha <
>>> giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>  we are using ex4300 with the last release available

 the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe

 it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems

 sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in
 jtac
 to try solve it

 Sent from my iPhone

  On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger <
> juniper-...@ml.karotte.org>
>
 wrote:

> * Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
>> hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
>>
>> Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
>> on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
>> find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
>> since launch.
>>
> I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
> for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
>
>
>  http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/
 information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/
 release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf

> There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
> how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
> because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
> (Broadcom).
>
> Regards
>
> Sebastian
>
> --
> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0
> B9CE)
> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE
> THE
>
 SCYTHE.

>-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
> ___
> 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
>



-- 

*Tyler Christiansen | Technical Operations*
tyler @adap.tv  | www.adap.tv
*m :* 864.346.4095
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Paul S.

That lower arp limit is precisely why we're looking at the 4300, though.

Which, by the way, does anyone happen to know if the arp limit stays the
same when the 4200s are put into VC mode -- or do they increase at all?

On 8/6/2014 午後 10:31, Scott Granados wrote:

+1 on the 4200.

Had very good luck with the 4200 series. Also had good luck with the 4300 but
there were some bugs. In a basic operation mode though they are quite stable.
That being said I was really pleased with the 4200 and you might want to check
them out assuming the lower arp limit isn’t an issue.

On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Yucong Sun wrote:

I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before. ex4200 releases is pretty
rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.

Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own
ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you
better failure tolerances compare to a single core.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha <
giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote:

we are using ex4300 with the last release available

the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe

it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems

sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac
to try solve it

Sent from my iPhone

On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger

wrote:

* Paul S. [2014-08-02 05:18]:

Hi folks,

We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.

Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
since launch.

I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf

There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
(Broadcom).

Regards

Sebastian

--
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE

SCYTHE.

-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
___
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] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Robin Vleij

Hi!

For simple L3 stuff (incl OSPF) we actually swapped 4300s for 4200s (mac
limit not a prob). We saw a lot of problem on 4300s in L2 and L3
deployments with an earlier release (l2_ald and sflowd processes taking
100% cpu, non-responsive processes that hang after commit, etc etc).
Those problems were all fixed in the latest release a little later, but
then it was too late to stop the "replace by 4200" train. 4200s feel rock
solid, so we're sticking with them for now even though the latest 4300
release seems good. Another advantage I think the 4300s have is the 10G
ports on the 10G module, where you get 4 instead of 2 10G ports, and of
course the much higher pps they can handle, even though we never came close
to the 4200 limit in that setup...

/Robin



On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Yucong Sun  wrote:

> I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before.  ex4200 releases is pretty
> rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.
>
> Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own
> ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you
> better failure tolerances compare to a single core.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha <
> giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote:
>
> > we are using ex4300 with the last release available
> >
> > the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe
> >
> > it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems
> >
> > sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac
> > to try solve it
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger <
> juniper-...@ml.karotte.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > * Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
> > >> Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
> > >> hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
> > >>
> > >> Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
> > >> on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
> > >> find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
> > >> since launch.
> > >
> > > I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
> > > for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf
> > >
> > > There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
> > > how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
> > > because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
> > > (Broadcom).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > > --
> > > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0
> B9CE)
> > > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE
> THE
> > SCYTHE.
> > >-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
> > > ___
> > > 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
>



-- 
Robin Vleij
Network Engineer

Klarna AB
Norra Stationsgatan 61
SE-113 43 Stockholm

Tel: +46 8 120 120 00
Dir: +46 70 161 26 84
www: www.klarna.com
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Scott Granados

+1 on the 4200.

Had very good luck with the 4200 series.  Also had good luck with the 4300 but 
there were some bugs.  In a basic operation mode though they are quite stable.  
That being said I was really pleased with the 4200 and you might want to check 
them out assuming the lower arp limit isn’t an issue.
 

On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Yucong Sun  wrote:

> I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before.  ex4200 releases is pretty
> rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.
> 
> Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own
> ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you
> better failure tolerances compare to a single core.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha <
> giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote:
> 
>> we are using ex4300 with the last release available
>> 
>> the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe
>> 
>> it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems
>> 
>> sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac
>> to try solve it
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> * Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
 Hi folks,
 
 We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
 hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
 
 Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
 on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
 find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
 since launch.
>>> 
>>> I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
>>> for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
>>> 
>>> 
>> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf
>>> 
>>> There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
>>> how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
>>> because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
>>> (Broadcom).
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Sebastian
>>> 
>>> --
>>> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
>>> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE
>> SCYTHE.
>>>   -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
>>> ___
>>> 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] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Yucong Sun

I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before.  ex4200 releases is pretty
rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits.

Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own
ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you
better failure tolerances compare to a single core.


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha <
giuli...@wztech.com.br> wrote:

> we are using ex4300 with the last release available
>
> the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe
>
> it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems
>
> sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac
> to try solve it
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger 
> wrote:
> >
> > * Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
> >> hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
> >>
> >> Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
> >> on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
> >> find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
> >> since launch.
> >
> > I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
> > for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
> >
> >
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf
> >
> > There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
> > how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
> > because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
> > (Broadcom).
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> > --
> > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
> > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE
> SCYTHE.
> >-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
> > ___
> > 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] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

2014-08-06 Thread Blake Willis

Hi Rob,

You might also consider the recent MX104 "bundle" MX104-40G-AC-BNDL:

"MX104 PROMOTIONAL BUNDLE, 40G, 2X10G BUILT-IN PORTS, 1 SERVICE MIC SLOT, 1 
INTERFACE MIC SLOT, REDUNDANT AC PS. SW LICENCES INCLUDED:  JUNOS, ADV-R, 
JFLOW-5G"

Cost should be about the same as an MX5 + 2x10GE MIC (possibly even a little 
cheaper), but you get a better RE, an open MIC slot, and more expansion 
capability down the road.

Good luck.

 -Blake

---
 Blake Willis
 Network Engineering Consultant
 Scalable System Design LLC

  "Education enabling individuals to overcome their reluctance or inability to
take full advantage of technological advances and product innovation can be a
means of increasing economic opportunity."

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

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Giuliano Cardozo Medalha

we are using ex4300 with the last release available

the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe

it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems

sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac to 
try solve it

Sent from my iPhone

> On 06/08/2014, at 07:15, Sebastian Wiesinger  
> wrote:
> 
> * Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
>> hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
>> 
>> Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
>> on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
>> find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
>> since launch.
> 
> I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
> for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:
> 
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf
> 
> There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
> how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
> because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
> (Broadcom).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> -- 
> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE 
> SCYTHE.
>-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
> ___
> 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] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

2014-08-06 Thread Sebastian Wiesinger

* Paul S.  [2014-08-02 05:18]:
> Hi folks,
> 
> We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few
> hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2.
> 
> Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000)
> on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to
> find out) that the 4300 platform has been plagued by random issues
> since launch.

I don't have hands-on experience but I looked at the EX4300 platform
for a new deployment. If you look at the current release notes:

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/information-products/topic-collections/ex-qfx-series/release-notes/ex-qfx-series-junos-release-notes-13.2X51-D25.pdf

There are a lot of (serious) bugs still getting fixed so I'm not sure
how mature this platform is. One big reason for that is probably
because EX4300 uses other chips than the rest of the 4xxx series
(Broadcom).

Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 stops forwarding after enabling inline flow sampling

2014-08-06 Thread Sebastian Wiesinger

* Scott Granados  [2014-07-15 16:36]:
> I found more to bring this thread home.
> 
> The problem I had was covered in PR963060.  

We discovered this problem a long time ago and there are already 1-2
threads on this ML where this has happend. Took Juniper some time to
even acknowledge that there IS a problem. Now they're trying to
improve performance but I think this is just patchwork until the
complete rewrite finishes.

So I'm looking at this new PR and I noticed the "Resolved In" versions:

Resolved In 12.2R9 12.3R5-S4 12.3R7 13.1R5 13.2R5 13.3R3 14.1R1

Do they want to tell me that it is is fixed in 12.3R5-S4 and 12.3R7
but not 12.3R6?

As this field is notoriously useless perhaps someone here can tell me
if this is in R6 (including R6-S3)?

Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

2014-08-06 Thread Tobias Heister


Hi,

Am 06.08.2014 um 09:48 schrieb Robert Hass:

Is 2x10G MIC supported in MX5 chassis ?
I just need to have router with 2x10G interfaces, and best choice will be
MX5-T + MIC2x10G for me.


The MX5 supports every MIC (exception the MS-MIC which is only supported in the 
back slot) in its first slot. So yes you can use a 2x10G MIC in the MX5.
There is a table of what is supported on which MX5-MX80 License Level in the 
Data Sheet http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/datasheets/1000374-en.pdf

I always think it is "amusing" that the on Board Ports get enabled after the 
MIC slots are enabled, but thats the way their business goes.

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

[j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

2014-08-06 Thread Robert Hass

Hi
Is 2x10G MIC supported in MX5 chassis ?
I just need to have router with 2x10G interfaces, and best choice will be
MX5-T + MIC2x10G for me.

But will it work or only 20xSFP are working in first MIC slot of MX5 ?

Please advise

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

Re: [j-nsp] VC in OL state (Juniper - cisco l2xconnect)

2014-08-06 Thread Werner le Grange

Hi

On the J2320, check if your loopback interface is configured under
protocols ldp.


-Werner


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:06 AM, thiyagarajan b 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have made up a l2xconnect between cisco NPEG2 and juniper J2320 and found
> the vc is not coming up. When I find the state its in OL(no outgoing label)
> , I checked the LSP path is fine. What could be reason for this.
>
> Warm regards,
> Thiyagarajan B.
> ___
> 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] VC in OL state (Juniper - cisco l2xconnect)

2014-08-06 Thread thiyagarajan b

Hi,

I have made up a l2xconnect between cisco NPEG2 and juniper J2320 and found
the vc is not coming up. When I find the state its in OL(no outgoing label)
, I checked the LSP path is fine. What could be reason for this.

Warm regards,
Thiyagarajan B.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] ex8216 FPC Cpu high

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

[j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 stops forwarding after enabling inline flow sampling

Re: [j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

[j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

Re: [j-nsp] VC in OL state (Juniper - cisco l2xconnect)

[j-nsp] VC in OL state (Juniper - cisco l2xconnect)

15 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information