I agree with you that router ID configuration is not mandatory to be a
routable address as per theory. But Don't many vendors mandate using
Loopback address when it comes to RSVP-TE, static LSP etc?
Another point: I beleive recursive lookup is no longer required
for L2VPN NLRI next h
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:54:53AM +1000, Ivan c wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Which standard does Juniper do? Sflow, NetFlow, IPFix, CFlow etc..?
>
> And does anyone have a open source tools to interrogate the
> information out of the Juniper for traffic accounting?
CFlow isn't actually a standard, it's
Ivan,
Juniper currently supports the CFLOWD record format, although I have pushed
them for IPFIX support and I believe it is on the JUNOS roadmap. As far as
tools to interrogate the data, there are many software packages which you
may purchase such as Arbor Networks Peakflow SP, etc., but if you
Hi All,
Which standard does Juniper do? Sflow, NetFlow, IPFix, CFlow etc..?
And does anyone have a open source tools to interrogate the
information out of the Juniper for traffic accounting?
Thanks
Ivan
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.net
One comment. ROUTER ID can be, in theory, 4 bytes whch are NOT adress of any
interface. Sure best practice and common approche is to have RID==loopback
IP. But this is not mandatory.
In this generalized case LSP should be established to routable adress.
Otherwise BGP will noyt be able to make recu
Hello all,
We're seeing a relatively small number of output discards (usually up
to 200 a day, usually in the dozens, some days none) on about 5 FE
interfaces (all of them on different routers on 4xFE PICs) and this
has been going on for quite some time. All of the FE interfaces use
various k
> We are trying to migrate a frame relay network onto our mpls network,
> based on juniper M10i routers.
> We are using frame-relay-ccc encapsulation and l2circuit configuration.
> The problem is that we are unable to configure dlci values below 512.
> We get the following error when trying to co
Hi Monika,
RFC 4447 says "Note that the PW label must always be at the bottom of
the packet's label stack, and labels MUST be allocated from the
per-platform label space." So I think we shouldn't use per-interface labels.
The RFC says also " When PE2 receives a packet over a pseudowire, it
must
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-xx.txt specifies the mechanism for signaling the VCCV
capability in interface sub TLV. (FEC 128/129). But for BGP signaled VPLS,
there is no option in RFC 4761 for signaling the VCCV capability.
Can't we do health check for VPLS in Juniper?
I assume Juniper does not support
Hi Amos,
Just to complete the excellent answer of Sean.
In the documentation I can read :
"Like Ethernet interfaces, a Frame Relay interface requires the
specification of CCC encapsulation at both the device and logical unit
levels. When the device is set to support CCC encapsulation, Frame Re
Amos,
normally all ccc are vlan id / dlci 512-1023. You might want
to try 'extended-frame-relay-ccc' and it should take all of
those as CCC - but you will then not be able to use any of
the DLCIs for, say, IP or so. All CCC or 512-1023. I hope
that helps a bit already.
Alexander
On Mon, 6 August
At 6:11 PM +0300 8/6/07, Amos Rosenboim wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>We are trying to migrate a frame relay network onto our mpls network,
>based on juniper M10i routers.
>We are using frame-relay-ccc encapsulation and l2circuit configuration.
>The problem is that we are unable to configure dlci values b
12 matches
Mail list logo
