Re: [j-nsp] [EXT] firewall filter misses connected interface addresses

2019-12-10 Thread Michael Hare via juniper-nsp
--- Begin Message ---
Charles-

This may be off mark but you have tried removing and re-adding the filter to 
your lo0.0 or doing a commit full?

I have seen apply-groups inheritance issues in 16.1 that match the sort of 
issues you are having.  I have experienced them both in BGP and firewall 
filters.  For example, I used an apply-group for iBGP and I have seen changes 
inside the config group result in a mismatch between config and operational 
behavior after a commit.  Same deal with firewall filters.  I've seen it across 
all of my MX gear and I didn't see this behavior in 14.1.

At some point JTAC pointed me to this the following PR.  

https://prsearch.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=prcontent&id=PR1357802 

I have seen the description of this PR change over time.  When I was first 
pointed to the PR it was all about vrf-import but now I see it has been 
expanded to other types of inheritance.  Personally I have NOT seen an RPD core 
with respect to this issue.  

I have been using 18.3R3 in my lab and haven't seen inheritance issues (yet?)

-Michael

> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp  On Behalf Of
> Anderson, Charles R
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 3:13 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] [EXT] firewall filter misses connected interface 
> addresses
> 
> I use something like this so the same firewall filter is applied on all lo0.*
> interfaces of all VRFs and logical-systems:
> 
> set groups RE-FILTER logical-systems <*> interfaces lo0 unit <*> family inet
> filter input ROUTING-ENGINE
> set groups RE-FILTER logical-systems <*> interfaces lo0 unit <*> family inet6
> filter input ROUTING-ENGINE6
> set groups RE-FILTER interfaces lo0 unit <*> family inet filter input ROUTING-
> ENGINE
> set groups RE-FILTER interfaces lo0 unit <*> family inet6 filter input
> ROUTING-ENGINE6
> set apply-groups RE-FILTER
> 
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Andreas wrote:
> >  Hello Mike,
> >
> >  if you're using that lo0.0 in a routing-instance or use more than one
> >  loopback you could also run into these restrictions:
> >
> >  - If you configure Filter A on the default loopback interface and
> >  Filter B on the VRF loopback interface, the VRF routing instance uses
> >  Filter B.
> >
> >  - If you configure Filter A on the default loopback interface but do
> >  not configure a filter on the VRF loopback interface, the VRF routing
> >  instance does not use a filter.
> >
> >  - If you configure Filter A on the default loopback interface but do
> >  not even configure a VRF loopback interface, the VRF routing instance
> >  uses Filter A.
> >
> >  See
> >  https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/usage-
> guidelines/vpns-configuring-logical-units-on-the-loopback-interface-for-
> routing-instances-in-layer-3-vpns.html
> >
> >
> >  BR
> >  Andreas
> >
> >  On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:46:38 +, Anderson, Charles R wrote:
> > > What hardware and software version?  There were some
> bugs/limitations
> > > with certain combinations.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 07:42:02AM -0800, Mike wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> I have a problem getting junos to filter out admin access to my
> > >> router
> > >> from unauthorized addresses.
> > >>
> > >> I have some addresses bound to lo0.0 which I am advertising
> > >> internally
> > >> in my igp, and which are the 'official' addresses used for SNMP, SSH
> > >> and
> > >> BGP to the router.
> > >>
> > >> I have firewall filters also that limit access to these protocols
> > >> using
> > >> prefix lists and such, and these filters are applied to lo0.0. The
> > >> filters work and I can observe log messages for invalid accesses to
> > >> the
> > >> protocols from unauthorized ip addresses. HOWEVER, snmp/ssh/bgp
> > >> access
> > >> to other ip addresses bound on the router, such as ethernet
> > >> interface
> > >> addresses, are still being allowed. I thought, according to various
> > >> junos docs, that applying a filter to lo0.0 filters out packets
> > >> destined
> > >> locally to the box regardless of actual interface. Could use some
> > >> help.
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
--- End Message ---
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


Re: [j-nsp] EX2300 Code

2019-12-10 Thread Alain Hebert

    Well,

    Our RMA experience with those model is not great...  good luck =D.

    PS: JTAC made us got down to 15.1X53-D592.1 after several issues of 
port being stuck open (STP) and looping our OOB Management :(


-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443

On 2019-12-09 06:15, William wrote:

Hi,

I am in the process of getting our first stack of EX2300s ready for
production, can anyone recommend any specific versions of junos to run
on them?

I'm not taking advantage of any advance features, just after something
stable :)

Cheers,

William
___
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