Re: [j-nsp] BGP over GRE

Could we please have som configuration excerpts? Right now the only similar scenario I can come up with was when I was doing iBGP over GRE, but then I made the mistake of terminating both the GRE and the iBGP session on the other routers loopback and so it failed. Since this is an eBGP session it's

[j-nsp] BGP over GRE

This is a very strange question, and very strange scenario... but I'm also getting some very strange errors, so I'm hoping that someone here may have seen this before and can give me some hint of whatever I'm apparantly not thinking of! I have a GRE tunnel from a J2300 to a Cisco router. The GR

Re: [j-nsp] fragmentation in GRE tunnel

Hi Ruslan, M-series tunnel pic there is no way to do what you want. You can use the 'clear don't fragment' option on the m-series although it requires an AS pic. - Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ruslan A. Magomedov > Sent:

Re: [j-nsp] Issues setting up LACP between M40 and Cisco 6500 CATOS

Dan Benson wrote: > Thank you all for the help here. I have one last question on this > matter. Is there more config that needs to be done on the juniper side > to load balance across these links? I see in the cisco I can configure > it to balance based on MAC sorce/destination. I have read

Re: [j-nsp] Issues setting up LACP between M40 and Cisco 6500 CATOS

Thank you all for the help here. I have one last question on this matter. Is there more config that needs to be done on the juniper side to load balance across these links? I see in the cisco I can configure it to balance based on MAC sorce/destination. I have read that the juniper does th

Re: [j-nsp] ATM <-> Ethernet TCC or VPLS, converting from cisco

I do not think cisco supports _IP_ interworking, what is TCC. I rather expect that on ATM pvc there is ethernet frame encapsulated into snamp aal5 frame (ethrenet over ATM). So this cisco setup is regular layer2 ethernet cross-connect, where one of etherent ports is on top of atm. In orther work

Re: [j-nsp] Issues setting up LACP between M40 and Cisco 6500 CATOS

You don't need to run a dynamic protocol (PaGP/LACP) to use an etherchannel/aggregate interface, just set mode to "on" on the Cisco end, and do not run LACP on the Juniper end. Phil On May 3, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Dan Benson wrote: > Nicolaj, that would explain my issue. Thank you. I am open t

[j-nsp] fragmentation in GRE tunnel

Hello Could anybody help me with resolving this problem. Is it possible to transmit packets, then tunnel MTU is greather than MTU of egress interface, in other words using only GRE fragmentation (not ip fragmentation). I have tried it on Juniper M-series with tunnel PICs and have got no result. It

Re: [j-nsp] Issues setting up LACP between M40 and Cisco 6500 CATOS

Nicolaj, that would explain my issue. Thank you. I am open to suggestions on some form of etherchannel between the cisco and the juniper, it was my understanding that the juniper and cisco only support LACP as being the common protocol. Was I wrong in this estimation? Thanks.. //db Nicolaj

Re: [j-nsp] Issues setting up LACP between M40 and Cisco 6500 CATOS

Dan Benson wrote: Hi Dan, > interfaces ae0 > vlan-tagging; > aggregated-ether-options { > link-speed 1g; > lacp { > active; > } do you have FPC or FPC-E? Active LACP is only possible with the enhanced FPC. However, why do you want lacp? Regards, Nico -- Accelerated IT

[j-nsp] Issues setting up LACP between M40 and Cisco 6500 CATOS

Hello and thanks in advance for the help on this. I am in the process of lab testing dual GIGe links from an M40 to a Cisco 6500 running CATos on ancient SUP1a's. Poking around on the archive pages for the C and J NSPs I have made a bit of headway on this project, but have yet to get a compl

[j-nsp] R: Estabilishing TE's tunnels between juniper and CISCO

Ciao, th problem could be caused by the "no-decrement-ttl" option that MUST be understood by all router in LSP: this option infact requires each router in LSP to manage a special Label request object that provides to other LSR the ingress "desire" to alter default TTL in MPLS header. So, as well

Re: [j-nsp] Estabilishing TE's tunnels between juniper and CISCO

Hi Marcio. If you want to hide your topology behind MPLS, you should use the "no-propagate-ttl" you should enable this knob under the protocol mpls hierarchy and on Cisco box you should enter the command "Cisco(Config)# no mpls ip propagate-ttl forwarded"... As this technology is not signaled

Re: [j-nsp] Estabilishing TE's tunnels between juniper and CISCO

Marcio, No-decrement-ttl is signaled via a proprietary ctype object in the OBJC_LABEL_REQUEST class. It looks like we are originating an LSP to the Cisco with no-decrement-ttl knob set on the LSP. This will cause us to send out a proprietary Label request obj ctype, which the Cisco will not rec

[j-nsp] Estabilishing TE's tunnels between juniper and CISCO

Hi guys, I am trying estabilish TE tunnels between juniper ( M20 ) and cisco ( 76xx), but TE goes up just when i disable "no-decrement-ttl" knob ( That´s not good ...). Otherwise the tunnel keeps down showing the message :"Unknown Object type:label_request with no-decrement-tt" Have

Re: [j-nsp] Default mappings of experimental bits in 8.2

Jacob, This seems to be normal. Please refer the below link, http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos82/swconfig82-cos/html/cos-ba-classifiers5.html Thanks -Ashok -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jacob Gårder Sent: Wednesday,