[j-nsp] Move traffic to strict-priority-queue on MX
Hi I have deployment based on MX routers where I have to put traffic coming from one interface (it's video traffic - multicast) to strict-priority-queue on egress interface - core facing interface. Topology is simple: Ingress interfaces: - ge-1/0/1.0 - interface with video #1 - irb.100 - interface with video #2 (there is IRB mapped for ge-1/0/2) - ge-1/0/3.0 - interface where IP customers are connected (best-effor traffic) Egress interfaces: - ge-1/0/5 - core-facing interface #1 - ge-1/0/6 - core-facing interface #2 My goal are: - clear DSCP bits for traffic coming from ge-1/0/3.0, put this traffic on best-effort queue - set EF DSCP bit for traffic coming from video interfaces (ge-1/0/1.0 and irb.100) Finally what I configured: # Clear DSCP + BestEffort queue set firewall filter BestEff term 1 then forwarding-class best-effort set firewall filter BestEff term 1 then dscp cs0 set interfaces ge-1/0/3 unit 0 family inet filter input BestEff # Set EF DSCP + ExpeditiedForwarding queue set firewall filter Set_EF term 1 then forwarding-class expedited-forwarding set firewall filter Set_EF term 1 then dscp ef set interfaces ge-1/0/1 unit 0 family inet filter input Set_EF set interfaces irb unit 100 family inet filter input Set_EF But It looks that it's not working. What I missing ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Move traffic to strict-priority-queue on MX
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 03:52:58 PM Robert Hass wrote: Finally what I configured: # Clear DSCP + BestEffort queue set firewall filter BestEff term 1 then forwarding-class best-effort set firewall filter BestEff term 1 then dscp cs0 set interfaces ge-1/0/3 unit 0 family inet filter input BestEff Interesting that you use cs0 to define best-effort traffic. Why don't you just use be, to ease troubleshooting? # Set EF DSCP + ExpeditiedForwarding queue set firewall filter Set_EF term 1 then forwarding-class expedited-forwarding set firewall filter Set_EF term 1 then dscp ef set interfaces ge-1/0/1 unit 0 family inet filter input Set_EF set interfaces irb unit 100 family inet filter input Set_EF Looks alright. But It looks that it's not working. What I missing ? What do you have under [class-of-service] 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
[j-nsp] MPC3E oversubscribe rate with two 10x10GE MICs
Hi I'm currently using MPC3E with one 10x10GE MICs in my MX480 and MX960 routers. I need to add 10GE ports, if I will put second 10x10GE MIC in existing MPC3E what will be oversubscribe rate ? I'm not sure but docs says about 200Gbps for MPC3E then It should be wire-speed if docs claims full-duplex or 1:2 if docs claims half-duplex. What is best solution (from price point of view) to have 16 x 10GE in 1 slot on MX480/MX960 ? MPC3E + 10x10GE MICs or something different ? Rob ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] MPC3E oversubscribe rate with two 10x10GE MICs
Hi, Am 01.12.2014 um 00:22 schrieb Robert Hass: I'm currently using MPC3E with one 10x10GE MICs in my MX480 and MX960 routers. I need to add 10GE ports, if I will put second 10x10GE MIC in existing MPC3E what will be oversubscribe rate ? I'm not sure but docs says about 200Gbps for MPC3E then It should be wire-speed if docs claims full-duplex or 1:2 if docs claims half-duplex. Afaik the MPC3E has one 130G Trio so two 10x10GE will be oversubribed 200:130 What is best solution (from price point of view) to have 16 x 10GE in 1 slot on MX480/MX960 ? MPC3E + 10x10GE MICs or something different ? The 16x10GE is line rate (with SCBE and higher) there is also the 32x10 MPC4E wich is oversubriced 320:260 on SCBE or line rate on SCBE2. So depending on your SCB and the need for linerate you have several choices. Then just do the math and calculate your per 10G oversub/line rate port price. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] L3 to the rack and L2 services over MPLS
Hi, Am 27.11.2014 um 08:59 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger: Is there any switch in the portfolio that would give you the ability to do L3 to the rack and still have multipoint L2 services implemented over it? VPLS or even better EVPN as L2 MPLS service would be required. My perfect setup would be: L3 to the rack switch with BGP and MPLS on top. Then over that implement your standard MPLS services for L2. EVPN should come to the QFX5100 at some point. So maybe check with your SE about a time frame and maybe beta builds. -- Kind Regards Tobias Heister ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
