Re: [j-nsp] ether-options vs gigether-options in MX series

2018-09-18 Thread Dan Houtz 
To make things even more ridiculous it looks like QFX will now have
gigether-options in addition to ether-options. This is where they have put
the FEC knobs:

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/fec-edit-interfaces-qfx-series.html

-Dan




On Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 11:08 AM Olivier Benghozi 
wrote:

> On MX, SRX, PTX, ACX, it's «gigether-options» for all ports.
> On EX, QFX, it's «ether-options» for all ports.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> > Le 18 sept. 2018 à 17:58, Drew Weaver  a écrit :
> >
> > Does that mean they're the same, even for xe interfaces?
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: juniper-nsp  On Behalf Of
> Olivier Benghozi
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 11:57 AM
> > To: Juniper List 
> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ether-options vs gigether-options in MX series
> >
> > ether-options -> gigether-options
> >
> >> Le 18 sept. 2018 à 17:47, Drew Weaver  a écrit
> :
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> I am attempting to create a link aggregation on an MX80.
> >>
> >> Reading the documentation it indicates:
> >>
> >> ether-options {
> >>   802.3ad ae0;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> To an interface will add that physical link to an aggregation.
> >>
> >> However, when I use that and look at the configuration it says:
> >>
> >> ether-options {
> >>   ##
> >>   ## Warning: This feature can be configured only in Ethernet LAN
> services mode
> >>   ## Warning: This feature can be configured only in Ethernet LAN
> services mode
> >>   ## Warning: This feature can be configured only in Ethernet LAN
> services mode
> >>   ## Warning: This feature can be configured only in Ethernet LAN
> services mode
> >>   ## Warning: This feature can be configured only in Ethernet LAN
> services mode
> >>   ##
> >>   802.3ad ae0;
> >> }
> >> If I use gigether-options it accepts it.
> >>
> >> What is the correct way of doing this on an MX80 running v 15?
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > 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] QFX5200 and other software than JunOS

2015-12-05 Thread Dan Houtz 
My understanding is that Cumulus has to do some work for each switch their
OS is to run on so this is probably not an option until Cumulus says it is.
This was the story when I ask about OCX earlier this year anyway.

-Dan
On Dec 5, 2015 5:03 AM, "Robert Hass"  wrote:

> Hi
> I'm thinking about new QFX5200 and idea of software-less box (whitebox).
> Please correct me if I'm wrong - can I buy QFX5200 without software and
> install Cumulus Linux on it as 3rd party software ? (I'm doing this right
> now on Dell switches for one project)
>
> 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] EX4300-24T and 40GE ports

2015-09-09 Thread Dan Houtz 
Hi Rob,

They can be used as normal 40G revenue ports once you delete them as
vc-ports. The EX4300 does NOT support configuring them as breakout ports
unfortunately.

-Dan

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Robert Hass  wrote:

> Hi
> I have two questions regarding 40GE ports build-in into EX4300-24T switch.
>
> Can I use these ports as regular line ports / VLANs / 802.1Q - instead of
> VirtualChassis ?
> Are they support Breakout into 4x10GE ?
>
> 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] New MX Product Family - Is it true ?

2013-03-12 Thread Dan Houtz 
I believe the AMX is the successor to the MX80. It appears to have the same 
specs but comes in at 1.5U larger and offers redundant swappable routing 
engines. I believe port density is increases a bit as well.

Dan Houtz

On Mar 12, 2013, at 9:29 PM, "Giuliano Medalha"  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Does anyone knows something about the new MX family ?
> 
> I have been read on this list about the new products to replace MX80, MX5,
> etc.
> 
> Is it true ?   Juniper will release the new family this year ?
> 
> Something new ?  More RE CPU ?  More RE memory ? More PFE performance ?
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Giuliano
> ___
> 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] MX Series MIBS

2013-03-04 Thread Dan Houtz 
Brian,

I believe you should be able to use some of the following OID's to get what you 
need to get started:

CPU - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.1.13.1.8.##WILDCARD##
Memory - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.1.13.1.11.#WILDCARD##
Redundancy State - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.1.14.1.7.##WILDVALUE##
SwitchOverCount - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.1.14.1.8.##WILDVALUE##
Component Temps - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.1.13.1.7.##WILDVALUE##
Component State - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.1.13.1.16.##WILDVALUE##
DOM - .1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.X.##WILDCARD#

BGP and OSPF and such should be standard MIBs

Hope this helps!

-Dan Houtz

From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] 
on behalf of Brian Johnson [bjohn...@drtel.com]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:09 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX Series MIBS

Josh,

I have looked through these MIBs and am still at a loss for which to use to 
create Cacti graphs for system status (CPU usage, memory usage, etc...)  
similar to the ones provided by Cacti for Cisco devices.

Any advice on this front? Is anyone else graphing this type of data with Cacti 
(or other SNMP utilities) on the MX5 platform?

Thanks

- Brian


> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Josh Hoppes
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:16 AM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX Series MIBS
>
> A full set of MIBs are available here:
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/juniper
> -specific-mibs-junos-nm.html
>
> This MIB is is probably the one you want:
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/reference/mibs
> /mib-jnx-chassis.txt
>
> They are versioned, I just linked to 11.4 as we are using that release
> but I would make sure to use the one applicable for your deployment.
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Brian Johnson 
> wrote:
> > I am having a difficult time determining what MIBs to monitor on my new
> Juniper MX routers. I come from a Cisco shop and know how to monitor CPU,
> memory and (of course) interface stats. I'm having no issues with monitoring
> interfaces, but cannot determine what MIBs to monitor for CPU and memory
> usage.
> >
> > I am using Cacti and could not find a good template for MX routers out
> there. I'd be willing to build and share if anyone can tell me what important
> system mibs to graph and supply the mibs for the MX5 through MX80 units.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > - Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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