Re: [j-nsp] Routing by source - help!
filter-based forwarding... http://www.juniper.net/solutions/literature/white_papers/552003.pdf Rochele Moreira wrote: Hello! I need help configuring "routing by source" in JUNOS. Someone, please, would have a generic prescription cake for me? Thanks, Rochele ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1585 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 6:39 AM ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper feature similar of Cisco SAA
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos91/swconfig-services/rpm.html alaerte vidali wrote: Hi, Any feature in Juniper to measure delay, jitter and packet loss, also integrated with SNMP, like Cisco SAA and RTTMON So the results of jitter, delay and packet loss can be gathered/graph with SNMP application. tks, Alaerte ___ 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] Juniper support vs. Cisco TAC - experiences?
Also, to answer your question.. I have some experience with JTAC. They are "on par" with Cisco from my perspective in terms of responsiveness and quality of support. I think they are about the same, though I'm sure either one will say they are much better than the other. IMHO, you don't typically get the support you need until you are at a Tier 2 type level anyway. matthew zeier wrote: > I'm looking at the EX4200 as an alternative to Cisco's 3750G. The > EX4200 is much less expensive than a comparable 3750G. > > Current network is all Cisco and I don't have any experience dealing > with Juniper support outside of a couple SSG-5 issues. I think the > largest barrier to Juniper is their support is an unknown and no one > wants a Cisco/Juniper finger pointing match when there's some problem. > > Looking for real work experience with Juniper support (and even with the > EX4200s, as new as they are). > > Oh, and Juniper doesn't do VTP or CDP (or Cisco doesn't do LLDP)! > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper support vs. Cisco TAC - experiences?
The G series phones support LLDPv2 for voice VLAN info... matthew zeier wrote: > I'm looking at the EX4200 as an alternative to Cisco's 3750G. The > EX4200 is much less expensive than a comparable 3750G. > > Current network is all Cisco and I don't have any experience dealing > with Juniper support outside of a couple SSG-5 issues. I think the > largest barrier to Juniper is their support is an unknown and no one > wants a Cisco/Juniper finger pointing match when there's some problem. > > Looking for real work experience with Juniper support (and even with the > EX4200s, as new as they are). > > Oh, and Juniper doesn't do VTP or CDP (or Cisco doesn't do LLDP)! > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] NAT configuration restrictions....
In the AJRE student guide on page 6-21, it says that sessions are tracked in one of two ways: 1. Per-service-set (interface-style service-sets) 2. Per-interface (next-hop-style service-sets) Then in the Services Interfaces Configuration Guide (in the technical documentation section Juniper's web site), it says this about source-static translations: ### Any addresses in the pool that are not matched in the source-address value remain unused, because a pool cannot be shared among multiple terms or rules. I can understand not having: (a) the same pool reused across multiple terms in the same rule (b) the same pool reused across rules in the same rule-set (c) the same pool reused across rule-sets in the same service-set What I can not understand is that if #1 and #2 at the top of this e-mail are true... Why can't we have the same pool referenced in two different rules that are in different service-sets? The pool would not matter at that point because sessions are tracked by interface not by the pool. Am I missing something? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] The Switch is ON !!!
This makes it more useful than the Nexus. MPLS = good. Alexandre Snarskii wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:32:37PM -0200, GIULIANO (UOL) wrote: > >> Be welcome to the new Juniper EX-Series Family of Enterprise >> Class Switches: >> >> http://www.juniper.net/index.html >> > > Impressive. Especially footnote about Advanced Feature License: > > AFL including IPv6 Routing, IS-IS, BGP, MBGP, MPLS, Enhanced GRE Tunnels (>7) > available for purchase with JUNOS 9.1 in Q2'08. > > noting that these 'switches' will be MPLS-able in this year, so > it can be used not only as 'enterprise switch', but as SP one. > And their EX 4200-24F is always ideally suited for metro ethernet > distribution/access levels... > > PS: if anybody knows, what MPLS features it will support - can you > share it to me ? :) > > ___ > 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 version for current JNCIE exam
All: I see that there are some preparation materials for the JNCIP-M and JNCIE-M exams at http://www.ipathtechnologies.com. Are there other vendors offering this kind of material? Derick Stacy W. Smith wrote: > Erwin, > > The JNCIP-M and JNCIE-M exams are currently delivered using JUNOS 7.2 > software. However, both exams strive to avoid testing version- > specific skills. > > --Stacy > > On 27 Dec 2007, at 12:19 AM, Erwin D wrote: > > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Anyone know the Junos version used for the current JNCIE-M exam? Is >> it the >> same with JNCIP-M? >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> ~Erwin >> ___ >> 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
[j-nsp] IPSEC dynamic peers in JUNOS
All: First, whats up Tray? Second, what experience do you all have with dynamic IPSec peers in JUNOS? Looking at the documentation, it seems we would practically need a public IP for every remote dynamic peer customer, since we can't share the same key with multiple customers per our security policy (only one pre-shared key per service-set, and only one service-set per public IP). Also since you can't use the same local-gateway in multiple service-sets, and obviously can't map a PIC service-interface to multiple VRFs that means a public IP per dynamic peer customer. For us, that would mean a lot of public IPs. Any creative workarounds out there? D ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Logical routers
ARGH. That seems silly to me. - Original Message - From: "Erdem Sener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Eric Van Tol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Logical routers > Hi, > > Different units of the same physical interface cannot be in > different logical routers. You can configure vlans in a logical > router, but the whole physical port has to be assigned. > > Cheers, > Erdem > > On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Can the interfaces be logical interfaces or must they be physical? >> >> I'm curious if I could divide up VLANs on an ethernet interface into >> different, segregated, logical routers... >> >> - Original Message - >> From: Eric Van Tol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:50 pm >> Subject: [j-nsp] Logical routers >> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> >> > Can anyone tell me which release started supporting complete >> > segregationof logical-routers with regard to configuration and >> > show commands? I >> > upgraded a router from 8.0 to 8.4 today and noticed that now when >> > doing'set cli logical-router', I can only see the interfaces >> > belonging to >> > that logical-router and configure only that logical-router. I looked >> > through the release notes, but can't find it, so maybe I'm looking in >> > the wrong spot. >> > >> > I love this enhancement, by the way. Thumbs up! >> > >> > -evt >> > ___ >> > 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 >> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: > 9/18/2007 11:53 AM > > ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
