Turns out I didn't need to do pushing and popping after all. I was
operating under false assumptions with respect to the way our Nortel
switches and Juniper routers would interact.
David
On 09/11/2007, David Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Peter. The customer doesn't plug directly in
I just went through some older post which states that even AS-PIC also
requires FPC-E. Does Multilink Services PIC also requires FPC-E PIC ?
Regards,
Samit
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 06:02:29PM +0100, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>> Hi Samit,
>>
>> No, LACP is supported on a
> Agreed, however, with the load-balancing export mentioned
> earlier, JunOS does per-flow balancing, hence, any particular
> session (such as a VoIP call and a stream of UDP packets)
> will always use the same path; thus they will still arrive in
> the same order at the destination router. =)
Hi Paul,
Agreed, however, with the load-balancing export mentioned earlier, JunOS
does per-flow balancing, hence, any particular session (such as a VoIP
call and a stream of UDP packets) will always use the same path; thus
they will still arrive in the same order at the destination router. =)
Dif
> As both Chuck and Leigh have stated, you CAN use GRE tunnels
> to do this, however, you will run into MTU size issues by
> doing this. You will also need tunneling/Adaptive
> Services/MultiServices PICs (or ASM cards if it's an M7i were
> dealing with) to do gre tunneling.
>
> The far "clean
Hi Hamid,
As both Chuck and Leigh have stated, you CAN use GRE tunnels to do this,
however, you will run into MTU size issues by doing this. You will also need
tunneling/Adaptive Services/MultiServices PICs (or ASM cards if it's an M7i
were dealing with) to do gre tunneling.
The far "cleaner"
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 06:02:29PM +0100, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Hi Samit,
>
> No, LACP is supported on any ethernet (not sure about really old ones)
> interfaces.
> Any relatively new Catalist should support LACP as well, if you are going to
> use SX optic on juniper, use SX on cisco as well :)
Hi Samit,
No, LACP is supported on any ethernet (not sure about really old ones)
interfaces.
Any relatively new Catalist should support LACP as well, if you are going to
use SX optic on juniper, use SX on cisco as well :)
Regards,
Jeff
> -Original Message-
> From: Samit [mailto:[EMAIL PR
Hi Jeff,
Since multilink ppp require adaptive service pic, Do I need any specific
interface or junos ver for LACP in Juniper? I am planning to get
P-1GE-SX interface so what type of gbic do it need in the Catalyst switch?
Regards,
Samit
Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Hi Samit,
>
> Not all of Cisco's
Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
[...]
Hi,
The problem was solved by putting a crossover cable between one of the
netscreens :)
So now i'm happy pinging a directly connected host via an MPLS cloud.
Thank you all for the help provided.
Eugeniu Patrascu.
___
From the documentation it seems it's not going to work:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos84/swconfig84-vpns/swconfig84-vpns.pdf
says the following:
NOTE: A Layer 2 VPN or Layer 2 circuit is not supported if the
PE-router-to-P-router
interface has VLAN-tagging enabled and us
Hi Peter. The customer doesn't plug directly into an IP interface.
They must first traverse a layer 2 network, and eventually cross a
shared q-in-q trunk where it's imperative that VLANs are unique per
customer (which we have to manage, to ensure VLANs are unique).
Return traffic must be tagge
hi Andy,
Thanks for the detailed email. However i could get a better understanding if u
can send me configuration snapshot. My intended traffic will use MPLS in the
future but for time being i need to know if i can deploy GRE tunnels to
compensate for OSPF unequal cost paths and then try load-ba
I've tried to use unit 1024 (as it fits in the range described) and
when I do a commit check I get the following error:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] commit check
[edit interfaces ge-0/0/1]
'unit 1024'
Only unit 0 is valid for this encapsulation
error: configuration check-out failed
You are right. W
GAY Samuel wrote:
> Hi Eugeniu,
>
> I see 2 mistake in your configuration :
> - you use the same route-distinguisher on the pe-1 and pe-2
> - the interface connected to ce-1 / ce-2 is configured with the unit
> 0. In Junos you have to use unit from 512 to 4095 to the ccc
> encapsulation.
>
Hi,
Hi Eugeniu,
I see 2 mistake in your configuration :
- you use the same route-distinguisher on the pe-1 and pe-2
- the interface connected to ce-1 / ce-2 is configured with the unit 0.
In Junos you have to use unit from 512 to 4095 to the ccc encapsulation.
Once you have change this said us if it
Hi,
I'm the process of learning MPLS and so far I figured out how L3 VPNs
work, but I got stuck on L2 VPNs.
I have a lab that consists of 2 CE devices (in form of netscreen SSGs)
and 4 routers (2 of them as PE and two of them as P).
the diagram is pretty stright forward:
ce-1 --- pe-1 --- m7i-1
Also with GRE tunnels you may run into MTU problems. At last with MPLS
you won't have that pro
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:39:23AM -0800, Hamid Ahmed wrote:
>
>
>> 2) You are giving the explanation for equal cost paths. However in
>> my case there are two unequal co
18 matches
Mail list logo
