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 necessar
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 - +---+ - +
On Dec 14, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Nicolaj Kamensek wrote:
>> Heap utilization 97 percent
>
> what does
>
> show arp no-resolve | count
>
> say?
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> show arp no-resolve |count
Count: 411 lines
>> Is this normal? I seem to remember being able to fit 500k+ routes
>
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
> (http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper
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 r
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Jeff Meyers wrote:
> Here is the way I think it works:
>
> - a second router needs to have at least one full-table upstream on it's own
> - the routers have to do iBGP with each other
> - I have to configure VRRP on both sides for specific subnets(just a
> few, not all)
> - the
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] Configur
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 {
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.
>
> C
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 junipe
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;
FWIW, speaking of PLL issues, I had issues early this morning with 8.2 code
versions regarding PLL issues on M20s and M320s. I have a JTAC case open and
they are researching. They pointed out the bug with the M40e and were surprised
that I am seeing the same exact error symptoms on the other pla
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.
An
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 Messa
14 matches
Mail list logo