Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:31:18 pm Chuck Anderson wrote: Finally, JTAC/ATAC can't even figure out the above!!! I have a case open and they *still* haven't come to the solution because they haven't realized that Today Trio only supports the old style config and what that really means. The disconnect between JTAC and the core of the development team has always been there, in my opinion. It took a whole year of back-and-forth with JTAC on a case that, when it was finally escalated to a senior engineer within Juniper, was resolved in 30 minutes. No, seriously... It's easy to assume that just because JTAC work for Juniper, they're familiar with JUNOS and the Juniper hardware. But this, as I've seen time time again, really isn't the case. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote: On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:31:18 pm Chuck Anderson wrote: Finally, JTAC/ATAC can't even figure out the above!!! I have a case open and they *still* haven't come to the solution because they haven't realized that Today Trio only supports the old style config and what that really means. The disconnect between JTAC and the core of the development team has always been there, in my opinion. It took a whole year of back-and-forth with JTAC on a case that, when it was finally escalated to a senior engineer within Juniper, was resolved in 30 minutes. No, seriously... It's easy to assume that just because JTAC work for Juniper, they're familiar with JUNOS and the Juniper hardware. But this, as I've seen time time again, really isn't the case. Mark. Although it doesn't answer the specific question raised via this thread, the following link dose offer some general guidance on Trio chipset features. Should mostly be applicable to the MX80 as well. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/general/mpc-mx-series-features.html Regards, Addy. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
All,
Thanks a lot for your comments, seems that there are more occasions
where this problem is occurring.
We are having the MX80-48T which has the Trio chip.
It was a bit strange while building the configuration, at some point it
seemed to work the 10.x way. There was ARP, but no connectivity.
The system is now live with the following configuration and performing well:
ge-1/0/0 {
encapsulation ethernet-bridge;
gigether-options {
no-flow-control;
}
unit 0;
irb {
description med-srvrs;
unit 0 {
description ALL;
family inet {
address x.x.x.x/29;
address x.x.x.x/27;
bridge-domains {
all {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id none;
interface ge-1/0/0.0;
routing-interface irb.0
Regards,
Tim
On 28-07-10 15:49, Addy Mathur wrote:
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Mark Tinkamti...@globaltransit.net wrote:
On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:31:18 pm Chuck Anderson wrote:
Finally, JTAC/ATAC can't even figure out the above!!! I
have a case open and they *still* haven't come to the
solution because they haven't realized that Today Trio
only supports the old style config and what that really
means.
The disconnect between JTAC and the core of the development
team has always been there, in my opinion. It took a whole
year of back-and-forth with JTAC on a case that, when it was
finally escalated to a senior engineer within Juniper, was
resolved in 30 minutes. No, seriously...
It's easy to assume that just because JTAC work for Juniper,
they're familiar with JUNOS and the Juniper hardware. But
this, as I've seen time time again, really isn't the case.
Mark.
Although it doesn't answer the specific question raised via this
thread, the following link dose offer some general guidance on Trio
chipset features. Should mostly be applicable to the MX80 as well.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/reference/general/mpc-mx-series-features.html
Regards,
Addy.
___
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 MX80 IRB
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
We have just received a Juniper MX80 and are building the configuration.
The machine is running Junos 10.2 R1.8
The issue we are experiencing is that the IRB interface seems to be
not working, although it seems to be configured correctly.
Configuration:
Try configuring it the old 9.2 way and let us know if it works:
ge-1/0/0 {
unit 200 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 200;
irb {
unit 200 {
family inet {
address x.x.x.x/27;
address x.x.x.x/29;
bridge-domains {
VLAN200 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 200;
interface ge-1/0/0.200;
routing-interface irb.200;
Thanks.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi Chuck,
I'm getting errors when changing to this configuration. It is only possible to
use encapsulation vlan-bridge on unit 0. And when I change it to unit 0:
messageVLAN Encapsulation: Not allowed on untagged interfaces/message
/xnm:error
source-daemondcd/source-daemon
edit-path[edit interfaces ge-1/0/0]/edit-path
statementunit 0/statement
message invalid encapsulation/message
/xnm:error
error: configuration check-out failed
This issue seems to be really strange as we have it working the 10.x way on
another router. When I configure Ge-1/0/0 as a routed interface it works fine.
Regards,
Tim
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
On Tuesday, July 27, 2010, Tim Vollebregt t...@interworx.nl wrote:
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
We have just received a Juniper MX80 and are building the configuration.
The machine is running Junos 10.2 R1.8
The issue we are experiencing is that the IRB interface seems to be
not working, although it seems to be configured correctly.
Configuration:
Try configuring it the old 9.2 way and let us know if it works:
ge-1/0/0 {
unit 200 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 200;
irb {
unit 200 {
family inet {
address x.x.x.x/27;
address x.x.x.x/29;
bridge-domains {
VLAN200 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 200;
interface ge-1/0/0.200;
routing-interface irb.200;
Thanks.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Hi Chuck,
I'm getting errors when changing to this configuration. It is only possible
to use encapsulation vlan-bridge on unit 0. And when I change it to unit 0:
messageVLAN Encapsulation: Not allowed on untagged interfaces/message
/xnm:error
source-daemondcd/source-daemon
edit-path[edit interfaces ge-1/0/0]/edit-path
statementunit 0/statement
message invalid encapsulation/message
/xnm:error
error: configuration check-out failed
This issue seems to be really strange as we have it working the 10.x way on
another router. When I configure Ge-1/0/0 as a routed interface it works fine.
Regards,
Tim
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Tim:
Could you please paste in your entire ge-1/0/0 interface and
bridge-domain VLAN200 configuration at the time you do get the commit
error?
Thanks,
Addy.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
Hello,
Tim Vollebregt a écrit (Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:40:54AM +0200) :
I'm getting errors when changing to this configuration. It is only
possible to use encapsulation vlan-bridge on unit 0. And when I
change it to unit 0:
messageVLAN Encapsulation: Not allowed on untagged interfaces/message
/xnm:error
source-daemondcd/source-daemon
edit-path[edit interfaces ge-1/0/0]/edit-path
statementunit 0/statement
message invalid encapsulation/message
/xnm:error
error: configuration check-out failed
This issue seems to be really strange as we have it working the 10.x
way on another router. When I configure Ge-1/0/0 as a routed
interface it works fine.
This configuration is working for us (MX240, 10.1R1.8):
interfaces {
ge-1/0/7 {
flexible-vlan-tagging;
native-vlan-id 1;
encapsulation extended-vlan-bridge;
unit 1 {
vlan-id 1;
family bridge;
}
unit 210 {
vlan-id 210;
family bridge;
}
unit 240 {
vlan-id 240;
family bridge;
}
}
irb {
unit 210 {
family inet {
address x.x.x.x/24;
}
}
unit 240 {
family inet {
address x.x.x.x/23;
address x.x.x.x/24;
}
}
bridge-domains {
VLAN-1 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 1;
interface ge-1/0/7.1;
}
VLAN-210 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 210;
interface ge-1/0/7.210;
routing-interface irb.210;
}
VLAN-240 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 240;
interface ge-1/0/7.240;
routing-interface irb.240;
}
}
HTH,
--
Emmanuel Halbwachs Observatoire de Paris-Meudon
Resp. Réseau/Sécurité 5 Place Jules Janssen
tel : +33 1 45 07 75 54F 92195 MEUDON CEDEX
fax : +33 1 45 07 01 89 véhicules : 11 av. Marcelin Berthelot
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:40:54AM +0200, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
I'm getting errors when changing to this configuration. It is only
possible to use encapsulation vlan-bridge on unit 0. And when I
change it to unit 0:
messageVLAN Encapsulation: Not allowed on untagged interfaces/message
/xnm:error
This following commits for me. The point of the exercise is to see if
MPC Trio cards *require* 9.2-style configurations: using separate
logical units for each VLAN, encapsulation vlan-bridge, refer to all
the logical unit interfaces in bridge-domain in order to actually
function. I.e. do they not work with 9.5+ style VLAN Bundles: family
bridge, interface-mode access/trunk, vlan-id-list? In my experience
with testing some new MPC Trio cards, this conclusion is true. A
perfectly working VLAN Bundle bridging configuration on DPC cards
failed miserably when copied over to MPC cards until it was
reconfigured the 9.2 non-VLAN Bundled way.
ge-2/0/1 {
flexible-vlan-tagging;
native-vlan-id 200;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
unit 200 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 200;
}
}
irb {
unit 200 {
family inet {
address 10.11.12.13/24;
}
}
}
VLAN200 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 200;
interface ge-2/0/1.200;
routing-interface irb.200;
}
This issue seems to be really strange as we have it working the 10.x
way on another router. When I configure Ge-1/0/0 as a routed
interface it works fine.
Does the other router where this works have the new MPC Trio cards?
Or is it using the older DPC cards?
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:46:41PM +0200, magno wrote: Today Trio only supports the old style config. in the near future, the new style config will be supported as well. I have several problems with the way Juniper handled this: 1. The configuration commits without any warnings or errors. There is no indication that what you have configured is unsupported. No logs, no alarms, no nothing. 2. I've seen MPCs crash/go into a reboot loop when configuring them the new VLAN Bundle way. (For the OP: do your MPC's go into a reboot loop, alternately showing offline/online under show chassis fpc pic-status?) They should gracefully fail to work when doing something unsupported and make loud noises when you do. 3. Documentation is severely lacking. In the 10.2 Release Notes, no where does it say today Trio only supports JUNOS 9.2 features (except when talking about the MX80 specifically, and some other specific features--nothing about the other Trio cards or about bridging/VLAN Bundles specifically). I've only heard that from statements made by my Juniper reps. Even then, you have to really dig deep in the Network Interfaces guide and Layer 2 Configuration Guide to find references to 9.5+ required on VLAN Bundles and other configuration statements and features. The 10.x Release Notes really ought to say In this release, Trio only supports JUNOS 9.2 features and configurations on the following cards and platforms and then list out *exactly* which hardware and configuration statements this applies to. The rest of the configuration guides ought to have warnings sprinkled throughout saying Not supported on Trio! with pointers to the old way that works on Trio. These warnings should stay in the documentation and Release Notes until the limitations no longer apply. The current situation is a horrible landmine for customers wishing to migrate/upgrade from DPC to Trio, as well as brand new customers like myself who haven't read the 9.2 documentation and earlier Release Notes. Why should I have to go back 7 releases worth of documentation to configure my brand new hardware that is only supported at all under 10.0/10.1 and only supported under 10.2 when mixed with DPC cards? Finally, JTAC/ATAC can't even figure out the above!!! I have a case open and they *still* haven't come to the solution because they haven't realized that Today Trio only supports the old style config and what that really means. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Juniper MX80 IRB
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Tim Vollebregt wrote:
We have just received a Juniper MX80 and are building the configuration.
The machine is running Junos 10.2 R1.8
The issue we are experiencing is that the IRB interface seems to be
not working, although it seems to be configured correctly.
Configuration:
Try configuring it the old 9.2 way and let us know if it works:
ge-1/0/0 {
unit 200 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 200;
irb {
unit 200 {
family inet {
address x.x.x.x/27;
address x.x.x.x/29;
bridge-domains {
VLAN200 {
domain-type bridge;
vlan-id 200;
interface ge-1/0/0.200;
routing-interface irb.200;
Thanks.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
