Re: [j-nsp] RES: Juniper Junos 8.4

It seems that there is a confirmed bug in 8.4R2.3 for flapping of interfaces: There is a problem with PLL circuitry on interfaces. The problem only impacts the M40e platform. This issue was fixed and committed in the versions 8.4R3 8.5R2 9.1R1 9.0R1 8.5R1 8.5R1.12 8.3R4. M. -Original

Re: [j-nsp] Route reflection design consideration

Stéphane Grosjean wrote: Okay, I can have a router to be RR for different clusters. Regarding the full mesh between the various RR, all in a different group without cluster definition is the best practice? Yes - you should configure separate group for the full mesh between RRs. And

Re: [j-nsp] cflowd ASN lookup

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:31:58AM -0800, Chris Kawchuk wrote: Ensure your stanza looks something like this: forwarding-options { sampling { input { family inet { rate 10; run-length 10;

[j-nsp] Configuration of prefix length filter

Hello all, I want to make prefix length filter, it works to allow all prefixes up to /27. The configuration of IOS is follows; ip prefix-list test seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 27 How to configure it? Thanks regards, ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] Redback(LAC) and Juniper (LNS) -- L2TP problem

Hi all, I found problem it was about ! tunnel-server 1/2 max-interfaces 8000 ! Thanks On 13/12/2007, Chris Hellberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Could you check that you have a loopback address and authentication type (chap, pap or both) configured in your l2tp host profile. Cheers,

Re: [j-nsp] Configuration of prefix length filter

Hello usacox You can use a special tool from the Juniper Website called I2J there: https://i2j.juniper.net/release/index.jsp You will need a valid login and password for this: ip prefix-list test seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 27 The answer will be this: policy-options { policy-statement pl-test {

[j-nsp] Re: [j-nsp] C onfiguration of prefix length filter

Hi Alan and all Thank you for your reply. I could configure my router when referring to your advice. I will try to get I2J account. Many thanks, -Original Message- From: Alan Gravett Sent: Fri, Dec 14 2007 22:43:18 JST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [j-nsp]

Re: [j-nsp] M10 FEB heap usage (RPF/route options)

Kevin Day schrieb: Hi Kevin, Heap utilization 97 percent what does show arp no-resolve | count say? It made sense that whatever route options are was the difference. I found an old post here discussing SSB SDRAM usage

[j-nsp] M10 FEB heap usage (RPF/route options)

I know this is going into undocumented unsupported territory and I'm intentionally glossing over details that I know aren't as simple as I'm making them here... But, we've got an M10 that's completely run out of heap on the FEB after upgrading to 8.4 from 7.4. (I dropped a few thousand v4

Re: [j-nsp] VRRP with Juniper, what is needed around?

Prasanna Kumar A.S schrieb: Hi, I guess your topology with two m10s will look this Uplink1 - +---+ - +-+ Uplink2 - | M10 1 |ae0| Core-Switch | - Customers +---+ - + | | | Uplink1 - +---+ - + |

Re: [j-nsp] VRRP with Juniper, what is needed around?

Pekka Savola schrieb: Hi, Strictly speaking, you don't need full tables from upstream. For example, a default route or default + some more specifics is also OK. of course, yes. But for a little traffic engineering we prefere full-tables here :-) In your simple setup, you don't