[j-nsp] Load balancing: hash algorithm

Hi Group, Do you know how work hash algorithm used in load balancing (only layer-3)? Is there some documentation about it? Thanks, Samuel ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] Load balancing: hash algorithm

The hash algorithm uses the source IP address, the destination IP address, the Protocol field and the Incoming Interface Index in order to generate a key. Thanks David. How is chosen the next-hop with this generate key? I am looking for this algorithm. Regards, Samuel -Message

Re: [j-nsp] Load balancing: hash algorithm

In the Juniper documentation I can read: By default, or if you specify only the layer-3 statement, the router uses the incoming interface index as well as the following Layer 3 information in the packet header to load balance traffic: - Source IP address - Destination IP address - Protocol

Re: [j-nsp] Vpn with rsa

I don't understand how to assign remote settings shrewsoft only has xauth not auth as an option.i have tried it from trust to untrust with authentication applied on the policy for a specific user And when he requested internet service he got a prompt to enter username and password I entered the

[j-nsp] PtP link over FR

Hi, There is an interesting situation, let me discuss the scenario first, Cisco Router A (same n/w) Juniper Router -(FR point-to-point pvc) --- Cisco Router B. PVC is Active point to point connectivity is OK. But the ping response from cisco router A to B via FR is unreachable

Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR

On your Cisco router, when you look at show frame map what do you see as the encapsulation? Is it CISCO or IETF? Juniper routers (like most other vendors) does not do CISCO frame encapsulation, so if you change to IETF on the Cisco side you should be fine. Note, this is different than Cisco

Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR

The PVC being up is a signaling of LMI telling you that it's in an ACTIVE state. It's more like you can call me on the telephone. But if you speak japanese and I do not, we really can't have much of a conversation yet the link is still up! HTH, Scott -Original Message- From: Mark

Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR

There is no ARP in frame-relay. More specifically, on a P2P subinterface, there's no mapping either. The assumption is that if it's not MY address it must be yours. So as long as you believe the other side is within the defined subnet, then you're good. If you have 10.1.1.1/24 on one side, and

Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR

Thanks for all. It was one mistake from my side. I used management interface ip address for routes on Juniper :) It's working fine now. Thanks again. -FJ On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Farhan Jaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, There is an interesting situation, let me discuss the

Re: [j-nsp] Tunnel Services

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:59:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - *May* use an explicit tunnel PIC in one of the 4 PIC slots (but since there is always a built-in tunnel PIC, why would you want to?). If I remember correctly, the onboard Tunnel PIC gives you only ~150mbps throughput. I may be

Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 07:49:09AM -0400, Scott Morris wrote: There is no ARP in frame-relay. More specifically, on a P2P subinterface, there's no mapping either. I think you're mis understanding my suggestion, I was suggesting that router A could only reach router B because the router in the

Re: [j-nsp] PtP link over FR

Fair enough. I simply read the scenario involving two routers sharing a frame-relay p2p link. :) Scott -Original Message- From: Jesper Skriver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:27 AM To: Scott Morris Cc: 'Farhan Jaffer'; 'Juniper Puck'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[j-nsp] test please ignoring

ignore . ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] IPSEC into VRF

I know you only asked about the J and MX series. The ERX platform will terminate a tunnel in the VRF. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benny Amorsen Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:08 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] IPSEC

Re: [j-nsp] BGP and OSPF ECMP

Hmm. Normally for LB we expect to see a ulst next hop, which in turn contains two or more ucst NHs. The FT display indicates that a single NH is installed for that prefix. Can you describe the nature of the test traffic? If its all one flow I'd expect all to take the same NH even when LB is in