Re: [j-nsp] MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP at 1G speed
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 02:43:16PM -0500, Aaron wrote: p.s. but I wonder what those (6) 40 gig ports will be called with a 40 gig qsfp ?? xe ? or something else ? et-n/n/n cheers, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Optimizing the FIB on MX
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: Can you use Junos 15.1? Try this: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/concept/use-case-for-bgp-pic-for-inet-inet6-lu.html From http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/task/configuration/bgp-configuring-bgp-pic-for-inet.html "Note: The BGP PIC edge feature is supported only on routers with MPC interfaces." AIUI, this excludes MX80/MX104 - arguably where one would need it most... cheers, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JTAC Recommended Junos Software Versions Old?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:25:33AM -0500, Colton Conor wrote: So what version does the community recommend for an MX80. Looking to make the jump from 12.3 to 13.3. Does anyone have experience with 14.2 on MX80 yet? rgds, Sascha Luck ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Recommended Junos version for EX-4500 virtual chassis
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 07:47:56AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: My guess is this code base is needed if an EX switch is part of a QFabric system. 13.2+ code is also needed if you have 40GE uplink modules in the switches, lower versions don't support them. rgds, Sascha Luck ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] J2300/J4300 FPCs cannot go online
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:44:40PM +, Tom Storey wrote: However my FPC is still seemingly refusing to come online: root request chassis fpc slot 0 online FPC 0 is in transition, try again I'm not sure this is the same issue - TTBOMK the standard routing on J-series doesn't require a licence and I saw the issue you describe at least as far back as 2010... I never tried setting the clock back though - I'll dig an old 2300 out and try that, actually. rgds, Sascha Luck ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX2200 na VirtualChassis
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 06:45:12PM +0100, Robert Hass wrote: HI Can I interconnect few EX2200 and form bigger virtual-switch using virtual-chassis feature ? Yes. https://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/virtual-chassis-ex2200-cli.html If yes do you have to use SFP ports for this Yes, copper ports are not supported. Can it also be interconnected with other EX models like EX3200 in virtual-chassis mode That I don't know... rgds, Sascha Luck ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 Virtual Chassis Uplink Requirements - Extended VCT / VCCP
James, On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:43:22PM +1000, James Jimenez wrote: I am curious with a EX4200 as to the requirements of the uplink ports when attempting to use VCT / VCCP. Juniper documentation says a 1000BaseTX SFP module is unable to be used however I have been told that this does in fact work and the documentation may not have caught up yet? the information I have is that the extended VC links must be optical. . I am also curious as to the requirements of the fibre uplink ports. If we are purchasing carrier services does it have to be a dark fibre link or are we able to use VCT over a Carrier VPLS 1G Ethernet service (LX/LH/SX)? We are hoping to VCT a number of chassis over a 30km distance. AFAIK, VCCP uses non-standard Ethernet frames and there must not be any L2 (and up) devices in the VC link path as these devices would drop the VCCP frames. rgds, Sascha Luck ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 Virtual Chassis Uplink Requirements - Extended VCT / VCCP
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:37:22AM -0700, Joel jaeggli wrote: extending the control-plane of an ethernet switch over tens of kilometers is a imho a seriously bad idea. Why, actually? Latency issues? rgds, Sascha ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 Virtual Chassis Uplink Requirements - Extended VCT / VCCP
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 09:47:22PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote: The MX implementation of VCCP uses standard 802.1Q with a vlan-id of 4094. I'm sure the EX is the same as well. The maximum latency is 100ms. I don't know about the MX but this whitepaper: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/implementation-guides/8010045-en.pdf says that EX VC uses non-standard MAC framing. It's the only bit of documentation that mentiones that, though ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 Virtual Chassis Uplink Requirements - Extended VCT / VCCP
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 01:47:43PM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote: Latency is a consideration given your control-plane is not distributed. What happens when it gets partitioned is a bigger issue. That is a problem when they're all in the same rack and there's a ring of stacking cables, it's a bigger problem at considerable remove. Partitioning is a problem, but I'd likely provision the remote switches in the line card role. If the WAN links get interrupted, you'll lose the remote bit but you would have anyway. (I actually have a requirement for this setup, but at least it is in the same city...) finally while your mtbf is about the same for 8 seperate switches vs 8 in a stack the impact on overall availability due to stack failure is much greater. Only if the entire stack fails - this should not be the case in an EX VC setup - I've had single switches fail but the rest of the stack kept pushing traffic. rgds, Sascha ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP-SP latest dumps
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:03:54AM -0700, Jared Gull wrote: I'm with Graham. Sack up and have some integrity, learn the material, and take the test pass or fail. of course this is true generally, but the exams are not always very compatible with practical networking experience. Srsly, you need to know every property of every OSPF LSA type or STP BPDU by heart? That's what the Internet is for... I did JNCIS the old-skool way and it was a lot of grinding useless information that I've forgotten again already... rgds, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Hidden IPv4 iBGP routes
John, On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:30:35AM -0600, John Neiberger wrote: I was troubleshooting a problem last night and it boiled down to a Juniper router that was not a whole slew of iBGP routes from a neighboring ASR9K. I'm too new to Junos to decipher the reason for it. I had to disguise it a bit, so I hope it's still readable. What does this actually mean? Can you tell from this output why it is being hidden? xe-0/0/0.0, selected Protocol next hop: y.y.y.y [correct protocol next-hop from ebgp] Indirect next hop: 9c48790 - State: Hidden Int Ext Local AS: OurAS Peer AS: OurAS Age: 1w3d 23:59:56 Metric2: 0 Task: BGP_[stuff] AS path: X Y I (Looped: X) I'd say the fact that the ASPATH contains a loop results in the route being hidden. IIRC that is default behaviour in JunOS rgds, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] IS-IS routes not installed
Hi Kevin, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:11:15AM -0600, Kevin Wormington wrote: This is a single level (level2 only) single area setup. As to why the if I remember my ISIS correctly, you need L1 adjacencies within the same area. cheers, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] strange packet loss without impact
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 12:54:09PM +0200, Matthias Brumm wrote: 1. In smokeping during the busy hours of the day, there are losses of about 5% Is the packet loss *to* the router? J series drop ICMP packets to the routing engine when they get busy... cheers, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] strange packet loss without impact
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:44:09PM +0200, Matthias Brumm wrote: No, nothing. No errors at all. The J series interfaces don't always show errors when there is a speed/duplex issue. If in doubt I'd believe what the connected switch reports :) 5% p/loss seems low for a duplex issue on a busy port though. cheers, s. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
