Re: [j-nsp] Access to junos downloads
Hi Alex, The official answer is that you can’t. If you require devices of this spec, then I’d highly recommend a support contract. The cheapest option would be support only, no hardware RMA etc. But if it goes pop... Others may be able to assist you in just getting hold of software but you may need more down the line for new features, PR fixes etc so best this in mind from an OPEX point of view you may have to wait a while during an outage. Cheers, Graham On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 08:30, Alex Martino via juniper-nsp < juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > Good evening, > > I have recently acquired a Juniper MX80 and MX240, both refurbished. I am > now looking for a cheap and effective way to get access to junos downloads > without having a j-care on all of it, so I can apply patches to my devices. > > Is there a "smart way" to get access to the downloads without breaking the > bank? I welcome any feedback in private email as well. > > Many thanks, > Alex > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- -sent from my iPhone; please excuse spelling, grammar and brevity- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Access to junos downloads
Good evening, I have recently acquired a Juniper MX80 and MX240, both refurbished. I am now looking for a cheap and effective way to get access to junos downloads without having a j-care on all of it, so I can apply patches to my devices. Is there a "smart way" to get access to the downloads without breaking the bank? I welcome any feedback in private email as well. Many thanks, Alex ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Parameters/variables in policy-statements
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > Not the answer you probably wanted, but I think network engineers > really need to start embracing less CLI-jockey and more centralised > logic. I agree whole heartedly, and that is a work currently in progress. However until then, here we are :) ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Parameters/variables in policy-statements
Hey, > 2 possibilities come to mind: > > - Create a BGP group for each different set of parameter combinations and > have the commit script set parameters for the neighbor based on what group > they are in. > or, > - Come up with a standard convention for defining the neighbor description, > such that the parameters could be encoded into the description. The commit > script could then set parameters based on the values in the appropriate > positions within the description. > > Both of these seem somewhat complex, but perhaps only because they are > unfamiliar. Are there other ways of doing this that might prove to be (more) > effective? My recommendation is to minimally rely on vendor tooling, generate entire configuration offline and you have same tooling, same logic available to every current and future platform, making changing vendor much OPEX friendlier process. The issue what you explain is real, and you can dig yourself to similar hole going to opposite way from JunOS to IOS-XR, by relying heavily on apply-groups and apply-paths (IOS-XR groups are inferior and cannot express same things). I'm sure similarly we can see any V1=>V2 transition being complicated and expensive when we heavily commit on V1 specific tooling. Not the answer you probably wanted, but I think network engineers really need to start embracing less CLI-jockey and more centralised logic. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Parameters/variables in policy-statements
Hey there, I’m somewhat green to JunOS coming from a primarily IOS/IOS XR background. IOS XR’s route-policy language supports the use of variables, or parameters, which essentially allows me to create a template that accepts some variables, and adjust the parameters that set those variables at various levels in the config. For example: ! route-policy GLOBAL-POLICY($LP, $MED, $SERVICE) set local-preference $LP set med $MED set community (21949:$SERVICE) additive end-policy ! route-policy IXP-OUT($IXP, $IXP_RTBH_ASN, $IXP_RTBH_ID) apply GLOBAL-FILTER if community matches-any ANNOUNCE--UPSTREAM then pass if community matches-any (21949:666) then set community ($IXP_RTBH_ASN:$IXP_RTBH_ID) done elseif community matches-any (21949:2000) then drop elseif community matches-any (21949:$IXP) then drop else delete community all done endif drop endif end-policy ! route-policy IXP-IN($IXP, $LP, $MED, $SERVICE) set community (21949:$IXP) apply GLOBAL-FILTER apply GLOBAL-POLICY($LP, $MED, $SERVICE) end-policy ! neighbor-group IXP-V4 address-family ipv4 unicast route-policy IXP-IN($IXP, $LP, $MED, $SERVICE) in maximum-prefix 10 90 restart 5 route-policy IXP-OUT(2010, 0, 0) out ! ! … … … neighbor 1.2.3.4 remote-as 1234 use neighbor-group IXP-V4(2010, 390, 0, 2000) neighbor 2.3.4.5 remote-as 2345 route-policy IXP-V4(2020, 190, 0, 3000) in route-policy IXP-OUT(2020, 2345, 666) out … … I don’t believe JunOS supports the same functionally directly, so I think I’d have to use commit scripts to accomplish something similar. As I’m trying to familiarize myself with it all, I can’t seem to determine the various ways that the parameters could be pulled from the config for the commit scripts to utilize. 2 possibilities come to mind: - Create a BGP group for each different set of parameter combinations and have the commit script set parameters for the neighbor based on what group they are in. or, - Come up with a standard convention for defining the neighbor description, such that the parameters could be encoded into the description. The commit script could then set parameters based on the values in the appropriate positions within the description. Both of these seem somewhat complex, but perhaps only because they are unfamiliar. Are there other ways of doing this that might prove to be (more) effective? Thanks in advance. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
Brian, are you talking about this kit: https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Nelson, Brian wrote: > Yes, I have these kits in production, without the back cable mgmt rail. > Work just fine. They are beefier than the pictures depict. > > Brian Nelson > > On 08/02/2018 10:08 AM, Colton Conor wrote: > > Tim, > > > > Have you used this 2 post rack rails with the QFX5100? It looks like this > > rail kit has a back plate, does the power cables fit through those holes? > > This QFX5100 is long. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Tim Jackson > wrote: > > > >> https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html > >> > >> -- > >> Tim > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Colton Conor > >> wrote: > >> > >>> We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post > racks. > >>> To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for > these > >>> switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something > to > >>> hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. > >>> ___ > >>> 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 > > > > > -- > Supervisor > Computing Systems Support > Dept of Computer Science > > ___ > 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] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
Yes, I have these kits in production, without the back cable mgmt rail. Work just fine. They are beefier than the pictures depict. Brian Nelson On 08/02/2018 10:08 AM, Colton Conor wrote: > Tim, > > Have you used this 2 post rack rails with the QFX5100? It looks like this > rail kit has a back plate, does the power cables fit through those holes? > This QFX5100 is long. > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Tim Jackson wrote: > >> https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html >> >> -- >> Tim >> >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Colton Conor >> wrote: >> >>> We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post racks. >>> To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these >>> switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to >>> hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. >>> ___ >>> 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 > -- Supervisor Computing Systems Support Dept of Computer Science ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
I'm using just the front part, center mounted. Works fine and is much stronger than the flimsy back part. On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 11:07:20AM -0400, Colton Conor wrote: > Chuck, > > We put them in the center, and even cut them, but overall the 4 post rack > brackets that come with the QFX5100 are flimsy as hell. > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > > Just put the rack brackets back towards the middle of the sides so the > > switch is hangs further forward. The weight is more balanced and it works > > fine. > > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:39:43PM -0400, Colton Conor wrote: > > > We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post > > racks. > > > To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these > > > switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to > > > hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
Tim, Have you used this 2 post rack rails with the QFX5100? It looks like this rail kit has a back plate, does the power cables fit through those holes? This QFX5100 is long. On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Tim Jackson wrote: > https://www.racksolutions.com/2-post-rack-rails.html > > -- > Tim > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Colton Conor > wrote: > >> We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post racks. >> To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these >> switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to >> hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. >> ___ >> 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] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
Chuck, We put them in the center, and even cut them, but overall the 4 post rack brackets that come with the QFX5100 are flimsy as hell. On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Just put the rack brackets back towards the middle of the sides so the > switch is hangs further forward. The weight is more balanced and it works > fine. > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:39:43PM -0400, Colton Conor wrote: > > We are constantly having to mount these larger switches to two post > racks. > > To my knowledge Juniper does not make 2 post mounting brackets for these > > switches. Does anyone have any recommendations on a shelf or something to > > hold these up? We are dealing with 19 and 23 inch racks. > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Mounting a QFX5100 or ACX5048 on 2 Post Rack
Chris, So the EX4200 rack ears fit on the QFX5100? On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: > We still use EX4200 rack ears and center mount them. Holes line up, works > fine. I believe it's "EX-RMK". It's more problematic to flush mount it as > one always needs some support on the rear- usually a small shelf on the > back side, like the small shelf used to mount an MX480. > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
