Re: [j-nsp] next-hop driving me crazy
Eric. eBGP single hop will not let you change the NH by default. You can
use the following knob to override this behavior:
protocols {
bgp {
log-updown;
group TRIGGER {
accept-remote-nexthop;
This can be applied @ proto group or neighbor. See
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos94/swconfig-routing/accept-remote-nexthop.html
for
more info.
Regards.
david
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tim Vollebregt t...@interworx.nl wrote:
Hi Eric,
Works fine here, as you configured it.
Can you reply your inbound route-policy and the show route x.x.x.x/32
extensive?
Thanks.
Tim
On 26-04-13 15:36, Eric Krichbaum wrote:
This should be simple but I can't get the behavior I want.
Blackhole scenario. Customer set community, I want to see that community
and set next-hop to an address I have with a discard. I've tried both a
discard interface and a basic static route. Those seem ok either way.
set routing-options static route 192.0.2.1/32 discard
Route comes in and is accepted by policy. With no next-hop 192.0.2.1
action, I see it as a valid route so I know the policy is happening.
When I
add the next-hop action, the route becomes Next hop type: Unusable with
Inactive reason: Unusable path. I don't see anything special about this
and what I translated from my cisco versions doesn't look all that
different
from various black hole presentations I find.
Anyone have a magic answer?
Thanks,
Eric
__**_
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
__**_
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsphttps://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] EX3200 Interface Strangeness
Bill. The 4 x SFP expansion module does NOT expand the switch to 28
ports. Instead it borrows or steals the last 4 interfaces for use
as ge-0/1/x. In earlier versions of JUNOS interfaces ge-0/0/20 - 23
were automatically moved over to ge-0/1/0-3. In 9.5x the the module
only borrows the ports that have optics in it (so SFP in expansion
slot 1 = no more ge-0/020). I think this is poor design (they don't
do this for 10GE afaik). So for the privilege of paying for a module
to support fiber, you loose copper ports. I hope this helps (please
correct me if you find this to be inaccurate). I cannot speak to the
oddities in the SNMP walks.
Regards.
david
David Waldman | Teliris | 55 Broadway New York, NY 10006 | O: +1
212.490.1065 x1306| F: +1 212.269-2869| M: +1 347.673.4707
This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all
attachments are a private communication, are confidential or protected
by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
information contained in or attached to this message is strictly
prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying
to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
I'm experiencing a weird issue with an interface that seems to have
vanished. (see below 1.)
I also have a general question on how the EX platform indexes
interfaces. (see below 2.)
=
1. Vanishing Interface
I have several ex3200's in production and noticed that ge-0/0/20
shows up in the config, but doesn't appear to exist.
bblackf...@wsc-sw-ex3200-1 show chassis hardware
Hardware inventory:
Item Version Part number Serial number Description
ChassisBH0208188142 EX3200-24T
FPC 0REV 07 750-021261 BH0208188142 EX3200-24T,
8 POE
CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU
PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 24x
10/100/1000 Base-T
PIC 1 REV 04 711-021270 AR0209216364 4x GE SFP
Xcvr 0NON-JNPR FFX20H700284 SFP-SX
Power Supply 0 REV 02 740-020957 AT0508119769 PS 320W AC
Fan Tray Fan Tray
bblackf...@wsc-sw-ex3200-1 show version
Hostname: wsc-sw-ex3200-1
Model: ex3200-24t
JUNOS Base OS boot [9.5R2.7]
bblackf...@wsc-sw-ex3200-1 show chassis fpc pic-status
Slot 0 Online EX3200-24T, 8 POE
PIC 0 Online 24x 10/100/1000 Base-T
PIC 1 Online 4x GE SFP
Now,
bblackf...@wsc-sw-ex3200-1 show configuration interfaces ge-0/0/20
unit 0 {
family ethernet-switching {
vlan {
members VOIP;
}
}
}
bblackf...@wsc-sw-ex3200-1 show interfaces ge-0/0/20
error: device ge-0/0/20 not found
snmpwalk from a host:
ifDescr.148 = STRING: ge-0/0/18
ifDescr.149 = STRING: ge-0/0/18.0
ifDescr.150 = STRING: ge-0/0/19
ifDescr.151 = STRING: ge-0/0/19.0
== 152 and 153 are missing
ifDescr.154 = STRING: ge-0/0/21
ifDescr.155 = STRING: ge-0/0/21.0
ifDescr.156 = STRING: ge-0/0/22
ifDescr.157 = STRING: ge-0/0/22.0
ifDescr.158 = STRING: ge-0/0/1.0
ifDescr.159 = STRING: ge-0/0/23
ifDescr.160 = STRING: ge-0/0/0
ifDescr.161 = STRING: ge-0/0/0.0
ifDescr.162 = STRING: ge-0/0/1
ifDescr.163 = STRING: vlan
ifDescr.164 = STRING: vlan.0
ifDescr.165 = STRING: vlan.1
ifDescr.166 = STRING: ge-0/1/0
ifDescr.167 = STRING: ge-0/1/0.0
ifDescr.170 = STRING: ge-0/0/23.0
==
2. Indexing question
During the gathering of data for issue 1 above, I ran some walks
against other ex3200's I have and noticed that the indexing is not
consistent.
Here's another ex3200 running the same code rev as above:
ifDescr.148 = STRING: ge-0/0/18
ifDescr.149 = STRING: ge-0/0/18.0
ifDescr.150 = STRING: ge-0/0/19
ifDescr.151 = STRING: ge-0/0/19.0
ifDescr.152 = STRING: ge-0/0/20
ifDescr.153 = STRING: ge-0/0/20.0
ifDescr.154 = STRING: ge-0/0/21
ifDescr.155 = STRING: ge-0/0/21.0
ifDescr.156 = STRING: ge-0/0/22
ifDescr.157 = STRING: ge-0/0/22.0
ifDescr.158 = STRING: ge-0/0/23
ifDescr.159 = STRING: ge-0/0/23.0
ifDescr.160 = STRING: vlan
ifDescr.163 = STRING: ge-0/0/0
ifDescr.164 = STRING: ge-0/0/0.0
ifDescr.165 = STRING: ge-0/0/1
ifDescr.166 = STRING: ge-0/0/11.69
ifDescr.167 = STRING: ge-0/0/11.70
ifDescr.168 = STRING: ge-0/0/1.0
There seems to be no correlation between the ifDescr seq numbers and
the interface names. Now, the switch above has a 4x GE SFP PIC and
the one below does not, but I find it strange that interfaces show
up all over the place as if they were dynamically populated into a
table.
==
Sorry for the length of this post.
Thank you for any input.
-b
--
Bill Blackford
Senior
Re: [j-nsp] About Routers J6350
Luis. See the data sheet regarding virtual-router and BGP neighbor limits (http://www.juniper.net/products/jseries/dsheet/100206.pdf). I imagine these are very conservative values but you may run into issues with JTAC if you exceed them and have to open a ticket (even on an unrelated issue). Additionally you will need AFL if you want the J to be a BGP RR. david David Waldman | Teliris | 55 Broadway New York, NY 10006 | O: +1 212.490.1065 x1306| F: +1 212.269-2869| M: +1 347.673.4707 This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication, are confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. On Nov 13, 2008, at 3:41 PM, luis barrios wrote: Hello .. My question is about J6350, Can i we use a J6350 route as a PE router on an MPLS network. I was checking the performance of the J6350 but im not sure. I need vpls, pseudo-wired and ipvpns, actually i need a robust equiment on the core maybe m10 or m120, but in the distribution layer maybe J6350. The J6350 maybe is a small router for a 50 customers and maybe a lot of that customer need vpls. And a m7i could be perfect but the price is not the best option.Anyone have seen the performance on the real world of the J6350 .. thanks for your comments luchobar ___ 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] Junos 9.2 and few old PICs support
We recently tested a PE-4OC3-SON-SMIR on an M10i w/9.2 and it worked (although we did not put it though a lot of load). The SONET pics are all based on the same ASIC (D-Chip) so they should work. I don't know about the GE PIC. david David Waldman | Teliris | 55 Broadway New York, NY 10006 | O: +1 212.490.1065 x1306| F: +1 212.269-2869| M: +1 347.673.4707 This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication, are confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. On Oct 15, 2008, at 11:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just want to know whether Junos 9.2 running in M10i/M7i support and valid for following PICs: 1. PE-2OC3-SON-SMIR 2. PE-2OC3-SON-MM 3. PE-1GE-SX-B Which version is the valid and supported for above PICs? According to PSN-2007-12-037, PE-2OC3-SON-SMIR and PE-2OC3-SON-MM have a last hardware engineering support of 14. June 2013. This is the last date that *new* software reeleases will support the product. The corresponding date for PE-1GE-SX-B is 31. December 2006, according to PSN-2004-06-014. So it looks like the two SONET PICs should work and be supported, while the PE-1GE-SX-B is rather more doubtful... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
