Re: [j-nsp] Problem setting a bypass lsp?

> I need to make a bypass lsp. I have configure MPLS > LSPs etc with RSVP running and node-link-protection > enabled on RSVP interfaces. If you want to use link protection (and I assume also for node link protection), the *system* creates the necessary bypass LSPs for you. You configure "link-pro

Re: [j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Aka everyone wants a cool new "40G interface", but nobody wants to > actually pay the price for true 40G serial optics when 10G is the biggest > thing available as a cheap commodity. Now if only someone could explain > this to the 100GE crowd. :P

Re: [j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:58:45PM +0100, Niels Bakker wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (German Martinez) [Thu 01 Feb 2007, 15:42 CET]: > >http://www.juniper.net/company/newsletter/jnews_article_070101.html > > > >What will be the diffence of running this or running 4 links in > >paralel? > > Three f

[j-nsp] Problem setting a bypass lsp?

Hi, I need to make a bypass lsp. I have configure MPLS LSPs etc with RSVP running and node-link-protection enabled on RSVP interfaces. I am setting the following command in the router : set protocols rsvp interface fe-0/0/0.110 link-protection bypass abc to 10.0.8.22 path 10.0.254.17 loose # c

[j-nsp] Problem setting a bypass lsp? ....quesion

Hi, I need to make a bypass lsp. I have configure MPLS LSPs etc with RSVP running and node-link-protection enabled on RSVP interfaces. I need to create a bypass to address 10.0.8.22. I have constraints 10.0.254.17 loose; 10.0.254.18 loose; 10.0.254.20 loose; 10.0.254.22 loose. I am setting the f

Re: [j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

In addition to what has already been said, there are restrictions on the differential delay that the four links can have when running in this mode, rather than aggregating at a higher layer. The benefit is that you get true load balancing, which is hard to achieve either with 'as' interfaces or IP

Re: [j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (German Martinez) [Thu 01 Feb 2007, 15:42 CET]: >http://www.juniper.net/company/newsletter/jnews_article_070101.html > >What will be the diffence of running this or running 4 links in >paralel? Three fibers, looks like. And some bad-ass handwaving about alien waveforms.

Re: [j-nsp] GRE problems

If you have enabled PMTUD under the tunnel interface, it seems odd that it is not working. Is your network blocking the ICMP fragmentation needed messages from the upstream router? However, another option is to manually lower the MTU under the [edit interfaces gr-x/x/x unit 0 family (inet|inet6|e

Re: [j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

This PIC allows you to run 4 links in parallel, with the parallelism at the physical layer. It appears to higher layers as a single 40Gb/sec link. You could, of course, run 4 separate links (as in an aggregated interface) but that provide the parallelism at layer 2. Or, of course, you could op

[j-nsp] Optical integration - optical IMUX

Hello, Could someone from Juniper comment about this article? http://www.juniper.net/company/newsletter/jnews_article_070101.html What will be the diffence of running this or running 4 links in paralel? Thanks! German ___ juniper-nsp mailing list junip

Re: [j-nsp] ERX 710 LAC

Hi Sven, You could try using the "l2tp tunnel test" command. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/erx/junose61/swconfig-broadband /html/l2tp-config11.html#167397 Gruss Bernd. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Sven Juergense

[j-nsp] GRE problems

I currently use a GRE tunnel to transit traffic from one site to another. However, this tunnel traverses another network which also uses a GRE tunnel to transport their traffic over their resilient path. I do know when using our GRE tunnel over the providers native primary link, there are no probl

Re: [j-nsp] OSPF Default Route

Hi Nitin， In my opinion,The fib have no 10.11.232.17's routing infomation. So can NOT resolve the adv router 10.11.232.17 of Type 5 LSA 0.0.0.0. Cheers, Haibo >From: Nitin Vazirani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >Subject: [j-nsp] OSPF Default Route >Date: Wed, 31 Jan

[j-nsp] iBGP convergence time

Hi All, I've already posted on JuniperForum.com but there was no answer so trying here (sorry for duplicate). There are 2 m7i, m7i_1 has a couple of EBGP sessions used for receiving full feed from the Internet. m7i_2 hovewer has only one IBGP session with m7i_1. Configuration of IBGP looks like t