Re: [j-nsp] Fwd: Re: MX-Series supported transceivers
Unfortunately I can't answer about the exact part-number, however we've had luck with 3rd-party SFP+ with the MIC-3D-20GE. I don't know if it's officially supported by Juniper though, I discovered this by accident, thought I had a standard SFP but it turns out it was a SFP+ module and the link came up fine, reported as UNKNOWN but working. Good Luck! //T On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Alex D. listensamm...@gmx.de wrote: Hi Chuck, BTW, Part-No 750-028392 is the MIC-3D-20GE, not the transceiver. Part-No. was wrong. Sorry, reading error. Correct No. is 740-031981 It could possibly work if the MIC-3D-20GE supports dual-rate transceivers in 1gig mode, and if the SFP+ is a dual-rate transceiver. that's exactly my question i try to get answered: does SFP+ 740-031981 support multiple rates and (if yes) does MIC-3D-20GE supports them ? When i trust Technical Documentation for this MIC, it is not listed as transceiver and should therefore not supported. But i rather would have a confirmation from someone who really knows it. Regards and thanks in advance Alex ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations +46 727 406 845 Videoplaza AB S:t Eriksgatan 46C Stockholm www.videoplaza.com Think before you print. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JFLOW
That's JFLOW, and as sthaug pointed out, I don't need 10G at all, it barely hits 3% utilization on the NIC's during peaks. //T On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Gavin Henry ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote: On 28 Mar 2014 08:10, Timh Bergström timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com wrote: We have similar traffic-levels (a bit more actually) and sample 1:100 and handle the analysis on an E3 3.0Ghz/16GB RAM/2x500GB SATA SW-RAID1 with 10G card with no problems and loads of capacity to spare. Is that inline JFLOW and IPFIX? Thanks. -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations +46 727 406 845 Videoplaza AB S:t Eriksgatan 46C Stockholm www.videoplaza.com Think before you print. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX series junos 12.x version
Sorry for hijacking! On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: * Marco Nesler I need to deploy a small VC with EX4200 switches. For the junos version, usually i just stick with the JTAC recommended one. In this case NSSU and non stop bridging are a requirement, so i need to put a 12.something version on the vc. Any suggestion on a good 12.x release, stable and suitable for a small production environment ? The machines will be used basically as a small L2/L3 core, vlan switching, lacp, inter vlan routing, ospfv2/ospfv3 with single area with around 500 routes. Running 12.2R3 on an EX4500-VC here, having pretty much the same tasks as you mention above. So far so good. Didn't actually try NSSU yet, but having it available for future upgrades was my primary motivation for going above 11.4 too. That's interesting, have you seen any other 'gotchas' with 12.2R3? I'm running a 11.3 version and desperately want NSSU (among other things) and have a similar setup, lag/lacp/vlan termination/routing/ospf(v3). Does 3rd party transceivers work? How is missing licenses handled (enforced/warnings)? Thanks! -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations +46 727 406 845 Videoplaza AB S:t Eriksgatan 46A Stockholm www.videoplaza.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Bridge Domain/IRB on MX80
Hm,
Your e-mail is all chopped up, we use IRB's like this;
* interface:
xe-0/0/1 {
description Downlink: edge01-xe-0/0/1 - core01-xe-0/0/39;
vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
unit 500 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 500;
}
}
* bridge-domain:
vlan500 { ** (this is only a name)
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 500;
interface xe-0/0/1.500;
routing-interface irb.500;
}
* irb:
irb {
unit 500 {
bandwidth 10g;
family inet {
address x.x.x.225/27;
}
}
}
//T
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Saba Sumsam saba+j...@eintellego.net wrote:
Hello,
I am receiving VLAN550 on MX80 (PE) via an LSP. The configuration of the
CE-facing interface is as follows:
*ae1 {
flexible-vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
unit 550 {
encapsulation vlan-ccc;
vlan-id-range 550;
family ccc;
} I would like to create an L3 Interface on the MX for this VLAN.
Tried the following configuration, which didn't work (was unable to ping
the interface IP from a PC connected to the remote CE switch):
**bridge-domains
{
VLAN550 {
vlan-id 550;
irb
unit 550 {
family inet {
address 192.168.254.2/24 http://192.168.254.200/24
*
*
*
*Any suggestions, please? *
Regards,
*Saba Sumsam*
*Network Engineer - Level 2*
eintellego Pty Ltd
s...@eintellego.net a...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)424753773
facebook.com/eintellego
PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – Brocade - IBM
* *
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
--
Timh Bergström
Head of System Operations
Videoplaza/System Operations
timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com
+46 727 406 845
S:t Eriksgatan 46
Stockholm
www.videoplaza.com
skype: timh_bergstrom
gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com
linkedin:
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] EX4500 - 3rd party DAC/Twinax cable support - link-up at 1g instead of 10g
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Tore Anderson tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com wrote: * Dale Shaw I have a customer that is trying to connect some ESX hosts at 10g to a recently commissioned EX4500 VC. Their ESX hosts are IBM servers, and they were supplied with the following DAC cables: Cable: IBM Twin-ax Active Cable 5M, PN: 45W3039 Cable labelled as: Brocade 10G Active 5M FCoE, 58-123-01 The (two-member) EX4500 VC is running JUNOS 12.1R1 (mostly due to this release being the first to officially support active DAC cables). The EX4500 detects the interface when plugged into an SFP+ slot but the line speed/link-up speed is 1g (ge-*), not 10g (xe-*). Note there are no uplink modules installed; we're going directly into the built-in ports. Other info: ESX Version: ESX 4.1.0 Build 582267 Adapter Model: IBM 42C1801 ESX networking driver: qlgc-qlge-1.0.0.45-100.27-offline_bundle-418618 Has anyone experienced this before? JTAC didn't provide much insight, other than to try a Juniper branded cable (e.g. EX-SFP-10GE-DAC-5m or EX-SFP-10GE-ACT-5M). So, that's our next step. Hi, I bought a couple of 3rd party 5m active cables (that were supposed to be coded for Juniper EX) that showed up as ge-* interfaces. We were connecting them to a pair of Cisco Nexus 5010s, which detected them correctly. We noticed that some 3m «official» Cisco cables we had lying around worked fine, so we asked the cable provider to copy the EEPROM ID (or whatever it is called) from one of those onto the 3rd party ones, and that made them work fine. It shows up in show chassis hardware like this: Xcvr 11 NON-JNPR F111026008 SFP+-10G-CU3M And show chassis pic fpc-slot 0 pic-slot 0: 11 10GBASE CU 3M n/a CISCO-TYCO 2053783-2 n/a This is a EX4500 VC running 11.1R3.5, the cables are plugged into the built-in ports. Everything runs great now. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp We're currently having problems with Cisco DAC's (5m) active cables that only shows up as ge ports in our EX4500-VC and won't come online (Intel 10G NIC in the other end, works fine with Dell-switches/modules). We're running 11.3R4.2, I've heard some unofficial rumors about this version and earlier that won't take 3rd party sfp+, we have a couple of juniper DAC's and a couple of 3rd party sfp+ (coded as Juniper) that works fine though. To be honest we're not running any Juniper SFP/XFP/SFP+ transceivers and it has worked great for us so far, it's just the Cisco active ones that won't come up. If I have time I will upgrade to the latest recommended software or just go with the 3rd party vendor and run fiber-cables instead. -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com skype: timh_bergstrom gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com linkedin: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JunOS 10.4R8.5 on MX5? Am I forced to run 11.4+?
2012/4/4 Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz: I just got an MX80 that won't boot 10.4 software. Like you, I did not want to upgrade to newer software yet, as my existing MX80s are all running 10.4R4.5 and we are satisfied with it. FYI my Midplane is REV 09, PEMs REV 04, QXM REV 06. All part numbers are identical to my existing MX80 routers in this network, the only difference is the hardware revision numbers, and the fact that this device doesn't seem to want to run 10.4. I guess I won't plan on deploying any new MX80s until I have time to test 11.2 or newer. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts Interesting, my MX5-T's midplane is rev 08, pem's rev 04, qxm rev 06, so it seems that the midplane is different but otherwise the same. Isn't there a couple of Juniper employees here that could shed some light into this? I'm currently running 11.2R5.4 as per the JTAC-recommendation list, I have nothing major to complain about but still, would prefer running 10.4-series as with the other edges. //T -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com skype: timh_bergstrom gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com linkedin: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JunOS 10.4R8.5 on MX5? Am I forced to run 11.4+?
Wow, that sucks major meatballs, thanks for the clarification. So there might be an option to hack that into the supported list of hardware so the damn code will boot at least. I'll look at it if I have the time. :-) Or if we all yell high enough they might release 10.4S to support the MX5-10-40-T chassis. //T On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Christopher E. Brown chris.br...@acsalaska.net wrote: The _only_ issue is that the chassis ident is MX5-T/40-T etc... The ID is not in the list so JunOS refuses to finish booting. We had some part numbers swapped, asked for MX80-40 in late December and received MX40-T, just had 7 of them swapped out. (We are currently running 10.4, no way in hell I am jumping to 11.2 or 11.4 at this time). The interesting thing about this... All of the support and sales folks I talked to have been under the impression for the last 6+ months that the new MXxx-T units were just a grey chassis version of the MX80-T (modular MX80 w/ timing). They all though it was just a part number change for the re-badged/colored units. I stopped yelling at them when they had to go to business unit management to find out that yes, 11.2 and later only and no there would not be a 10.4S release that added the new chassis IDs for those of us caught in the middle. On 3/22/12 6:19 AM, OBrien, Will wrote: I think it's a matter of the newer switching fabric only being supported in 11. Will O'Brien On Mar 22, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Per Granath per.gran...@gcc.com.cy wrote: I suspect the 10.4 would not lock down the XE ports on the chassis, so there is a reason for not allowing it to work... It's quite weird, especially since I can upgrade the system to a full MX80 with licences only, and if I do that I expect that I will be able to run my standard release (10.4R8.5) which I run on my other MX80s (which is the full MX80 btw). So basically, I feel a bit cheated that I had to wait for MX5 to be released when I could get a MX80-5G. I'm going to try to install 11.2R5.4 (recommended release) on it now, I do not trust a R1-release. Ever. ;-) I might also try create a technical support ticket or raise hell with my SR to try to make the 10.4-series to support MX5/10/40s unless someone else has done it already. -- Christopher E. Brown chris.br...@acsalaska.net desk (907) 550-8393 cell (907) 632-8492 IP Engineer - ACS ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com skype: timh_bergstrom gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com linkedin: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JunOS 10.4R8.5 on MX5? Am I forced to run 11.4+?
Perhaps, I wish it was still allowed to run earlier code, they've had honor-based restrictions before and I just think that it should continue like that. Locking down stuff will only make people find keygens/license generators and do it anyway if they don't honor the restrictions in the first place. If it's purely because there is NEW hardware that require the new software in the newer MX5/10/40-T series then fine, if it's for locking down ports/enforcing license restrictions then they have a very skewed priority, instead of fixing bugs they introduce lock-downs. :-P Just my 2c. //T 2012/3/22 Per Granath per.gran...@gcc.com.cy: I suspect the 10.4 would not lock down the XE ports on the chassis, so there is a reason for not allowing it to work... It's quite weird, especially since I can upgrade the system to a full MX80 with licences only, and if I do that I expect that I will be able to run my standard release (10.4R8.5) which I run on my other MX80s (which is the full MX80 btw). So basically, I feel a bit cheated that I had to wait for MX5 to be released when I could get a MX80-5G. I'm going to try to install 11.2R5.4 (recommended release) on it now, I do not trust a R1-release. Ever. ;-) I might also try create a technical support ticket or raise hell with my SR to try to make the 10.4-series to support MX5/10/40s unless someone else has done it already. -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com skype: timh_bergstrom gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com linkedin: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] JunOS 10.4R8.5 on MX5? Am I forced to run 11.4+?
Hi, I recently bought a MX5-T (Instead of the MX80-5G) and I'm running 10.4R8.5 on my other MX80s and would naturally like to run the same codebase on all my MX-series hardware. However when I try to install the 10.4R8.5 release on the MX5-T it says that the platform is not supported, I thought the MX5/10/40 was the same hardware as the MX80 (it surely looks the same, side-by-side)? Does anyone have any thoughts or information on this? It got delivered with 11.4R1.14 and I actually have no use of imix/etc whatever the new features is in the 11.X, I just want to run them as network edges with eBGP, iBGP and OSPF, no special stuff, and I'm happy with 10.4R8.5 so far. I also tried (for fun) to downgrade to 11.2R5.4 (which is the recommended release according to JTAC) but that didn't work either, the mgd process core-dumped and the validation failed, I did not run with no-validate (yet) for neither of the softwares. Thanks, -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com skype: timh_bergstrom gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com linkedin: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] JunOS 10.4R8.5 on MX5? Am I forced to run 11.4+?
Hi, Thanks for the information, it gives some answers. But what would actually happen if I try to install 10.4R8.5 with no-validate etc and force it to accept it, would it stop working or not, since it's the same hardware as the MX80 but with other descriptions it should work, but I'm unsure. Don't want to brick it. :-) //T On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Tima Maryin timamar...@mail.ru wrote: Hi, Here: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.2/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/11.2/topic-57399.html New MX5, MX10, and MX40 3D Universal Edge Routers—Three new routers based on the modular MX80 chassis are available in Junos OS Release 11.2R6. Though in 11.4 relnotes it's 11.2R3 :-/ So you probably should try 11.2R6. On 22.03.2012 11:16, Timh Bergström wrote: Hi, I recently bought a MX5-T (Instead of the MX80-5G) and I'm running 10.4R8.5 on my other MX80s and would naturally like to run the same codebase on all my MX-series hardware. However when I try to install the 10.4R8.5 release on the MX5-T it says that the platform is not supported, I thought the MX5/10/40 was the same hardware as the MX80 (it surely looks the same, side-by-side)? Does anyone have any thoughts or information on this? It got delivered with 11.4R1.14 and I actually have no use of imix/etc whatever the new features is in the 11.X, I just want to run them as network edges with eBGP, iBGP and OSPF, no special stuff, and I'm happy with 10.4R8.5 so far. I also tried (for fun) to downgrade to 11.2R5.4 (which is the recommended release according to JTAC) but that didn't work either, the mgd process core-dumped and the validation failed, I did not run with no-validate (yet) for neither of the softwares. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- Timh Bergström Head of System Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com skype: timh_bergstrom gtalk: timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com linkedin: ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Decent J-Series software version
We are running 10.4r7.5 with security on dual stack with static routing, dhcp (IPv4) and RA (IPv6) for the office, it Works ok, but had to upgrade the ram and cf. We are running j2320. We also have one j2320 running on 10.4R8-something for our IX peerings, both v4/v6. I've disabled all security and run it in packet mode though, it also has 2GB ram and the bigger cf. Both of them average below 100mbps though and the office router handles about 65 employees easily. My best bet would be the latest 10.4-version or the latest service-release/recommended. //T On 28 feb 2012, at 23:23, Yucong Sun (叶雨飞) sunyuc...@gmail.com wrote: any one? On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Yucong Sun (叶雨飞) sunyuc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have two j2350, one with 9.3r4.4, and the other I am trying to find a good version to upgrade to, with security features. So far I have tried: 1) 10.1 - 10.2R4, those runs okay, but they only have half-ass ipv6 support. 2) 10.4R8, crash once a month or so, msut be manually rebooted, plus they basically just hose horribly under 20kpps or 200k sessions. 3) 11.X crash on boot directly they both are taking full BGP feeds, and I've upgraded them both to 2.5G ram, and I even upgraded on-board cpu to 3G model. anyway I'm about to give up on any hope to use non-packet mode on these routers, my money would have been much better spend if I just buy a decent dell server and good network cards, they all handles tons of tons more sessions just fine, any similar experiences? ___ 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] Sources for SFP+ optics
Another good option for VC is the DAC/Twinax cables (0,5-5M) which you can get from juniper for the price of a decent dinner for two. //T On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Robert Juric robert.ju...@gmail.com wrote: They may have changed their policy, but I believe Juniper only supports Juniper optics in their equipment. Others will work, but if you want full support from Juniper I suggest you talk to your account team. Robert On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Mike Williams mike.willi...@comodo.comwrote: Hey all, While I'm thinking about 10Gb in EX3300s. Does anyone have a reliable source for 10Gb SFP+s suitable for VC use in EXs? US or Europe doesn't really matter, but US would be easier. We should be in the market for 20 or so shortly, to connect 4 bunches of 3300s into VCs. Only 4 would be driving cable lengths anywhere near 200 meters, but all would be on SMF for consistancy, if that matters at all. Thanks -- Mike Williams ___ 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 -- -- Timh Bergström Head of Operations Videoplaza/System Operations timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] NAT performance :: J2320
We are running a J2320 with NAT/Firewall and serve about 90-150 clients without breaking a sweat, mind this is an converted SSG320M with 1G CF / 2GB RAM. In load-tests we can get about 800Mbps through it, but we don't have any extensive rules. -- Timh Bergström System Operations Videoplaza timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Vladislav A. VASILEV vladislavavasi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I was wondering if any of you could give me any real world stats on stateless NAT performance (IMIX traffic) on the J2320s. Since stateless NAT is not possible on the SRX series the cheapest Juniper devices that support it are the J series. I realize they are software based and nowhere close to the performance of the M7i + AS-PIC for example, but I'd appreciate if you share any info you may have. Thank you! Regards, Vladislav A. VASILEV ___ 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] J-Series Router Options
Hey, I'd say get a bigger CF and install some 10.4 version and follow this; http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Enabling_packet_based_forwarding Disables all that flow stuff you really don't want on a router. -- Timh Bergström System Operations Videoplaza timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com +46 727 406 845 S:t Eriksgatan 46 Stockholm www.videoplaza.com On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:18 PM, R. Benjamin Kessler ben.kess...@zenetra.com wrote: Hello All - We have a client with a lot of J-Series routers running 9.3 code or earlier. We really like the features and functionality of JUNOS as a router and are more than a little annoyed that Juniper seems to be forcing us to turn these routers into firewalls. What are others doing to deal with the flow issues associated with more recent versions of code? Also, many of these routers have small CF cards (e.g. 256MB or 512MB) which will also cause issues with more modern versions of code. I'm interested in knowing how others have tackled these challenges for customers with hundreds of these in the field. Thanks, Ben ___ 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
