[j-nsp] How to CoS on M-series Fe interface but connected to Fe/E3 converter ?

Hi, I have this topo: multi-ingress_FE>M7i-FE-->Fe/E3_converter---> I need to CoS on FE interface but do not know how to let this M7i know about "the real bw" 34Mbps of the Fe/E3 converter . Congestion can happen on egress link of M7i to converter. You ca

Re: [j-nsp] IPv6 6to4 tunneling support

On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 02:42:14PM +0500, FAHAD ALI KHAN wrote: > I am amaze to see that Juniper didn't support 6to4 & ISATAP tunneling > mechanisms Especially 6to4 is surprising... it a very trivial, stateless encapsulation a Tunnel PIC could most probably totally easy do. Best regards, Dan

Re: [j-nsp] Policy ordering in 8.0

Looks like it changed specifically in 7.4, (one rev up from my 7.3). It's listed at the very end of the 7.4 release notes; guess I just missed it. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos74/rn-sw-74/default-and-syntax-changes.html#default-and-syntax-changes "Policy statements—When you

Re: [j-nsp] Problem with upgrading m7i to 8.1R1.5

Hi, Please see this: View Bulletin PSN-2006-09-029 Title Unrecognized Power Entry Module (PEM) alarm on M7i and M10i Products Affected All M7i and M10i routing platforms running JUNOS version 8.0 or lower. Platforms Affected JUNOS 8.x M-series Revision Number 1 Issue Date 2006-11-01 PSN

Re: [j-nsp] IPv6 6to4 tunneling support

> I believe once the RFC has been defined and it became a standard than > Juniper should go for it. 6to4 is "optional interim mechanism" as per RFC3056. ISATAP is "Experimental Protocol" as per RFC4214 and status of this RFC is EXPERIMENTAL. So why juniper shall go for RFC3056 if it's optional?

Re: [j-nsp] IPv6 6to4 tunneling support

Dear Yeshoda 6to4 tunneling is a separate mechanism.than IPv6 over IPv4 Tunnels or IPv6 over MPLS LSP. the difference is in the dynamic nature of 6to4 tunnel as compared to IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel using ip-ip or GRE tunnels I never mean that it is not possible to deploy IPv6 using Junip

[j-nsp] Problem with upgrading m7i to 8.1R1.5

Hello there, After upgrading our M7i to 8.1R1.5 we've experienced the following problem: > show chassis alarms 2 alarms currently active Alarm time Class Description 2007-01-15 10:07:34 UTC Major PEM 1 Unrecognized for the platform 2007-01-15 10:07:33 UTC Major PEM 0 Unrecogniz

Re: [j-nsp] L2circuit martini issue....!

If Your Client routers support it, FREEK (acronym for Frame-Relay End-to-End Keepalive) may be what You are looking for... Cheers Alex - Original Message - From: "FAHAD ALI KHAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "juniper-nsp" Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: [j-nsp] L2circuit mart

[j-nsp] L2circuit martini issue....!

Guys! I have got stuck in a issue regarding MPLS L2circuit (Martini). Here is my scenario, L2cct (Martini) has been configured between two MPLS Nodes. Client Site A is connected directly over E1 at MPLS Node (M10i) and Client Site B is connected to Frame Relay Switch (New Bridge 3600) over E

[j-nsp] IPv6 6to4 tunneling support

Guys...! I am amaze to see that Juniper didn't support 6to4 & ISATAP tunneling mechanismsas it is supported by number of other vendors like CISCO, 6WIND, Hitachi...etc...a/c to the RFC 3056. Can anybody tell me why Juniper is lacking behind other vendor in IPv6 deployment! Regards Fahad

Re: [j-nsp] Policy ordering in 8.0

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Everyone else seeing similar behavior? I checked the bug reports, and > at last look couldn't find a PR number. Either this is a new > "feature" that I missed reading, or just hasn't been reported as a bug > yet. Yes, this feature appeared in 7.5 A

[j-nsp] Policy ordering in 8.0

I recently upgraded one of our Junipers from 7.3R2.9 to 8.0R2.8, and discovered something that I'm not sure if it's a bug, or simply a new "feature" of JunOS Under the "policy options" section, I've got quite a large number of policy statements. In previous releases, the ordering of the policy st