[j-nsp] switching to superuser after a logging in as a normal user

Hi, Is there any way I can login to the router as a normal user and then switch to superuser by doing "su " something similar like in unix systems? with tacacs+ or without tacacs+. Regards, Samit ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

[j-nsp] Radius CoA on MX

Hi - does anyone know how to enable MX for Radius CoA? The manual says that the lines in red are mandatory and that by default Junos listens on UDP port 3799. This is on MX480. ad...@ny-access001# show access radius-server { 114.0.1.10 secret "$9$fzF/tu1SyKBIyK8LbwfTz6tO"; ## SECRET-DATA } pr

Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?

We're in the same 10G boat as Ken and Mark so I'm really appreciating all the contributions to this thread! Actually have a meeting next week with our Juniper account to discuss 10G platforms so this topic is very timely. We have 3 m10i's in our extranet with a couple of OC12 PICs, AS-PICs. IPv4/

[j-nsp] Suggested modems for SSG out of band access?

Anyone have a good recommendations for a modem that works good with Juniper SSG series for out of band access? Thanks, Chris Serafin ch...@chriserafin.com ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinf

Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:17:12AM -0800, ken lindahl wrote: > p.s.: it's worth noting that adding "tunnel PIC capability" to an MX, in > order to have it act as an RP, uses a full slot in the chassis. Not exactly... At worst you disable a full "pic" (1/4th of the DPC card) to create a tunnel, a

Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?

On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:17 AM, ken lindahl wrote: p.s.: it's worth noting that adding "tunnel PIC capability" to an MX, in order to have it act as an RP, uses a full slot in the chassis. It does not require a full slot, but depending on your tunnel bandwidth requirement it may require dedicat

Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?

On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:17, ken lindahl wrote: On 2/3/2009 6:30 AM, Mark Johnson wrote: We need at least 4 x 10G ports and 8 x 1G ports, IPv4/IPv6, OSPFv2/ OSPFv3, full BGP (peering/transit), no MPLS and that's about it. While I love Junipers I would consider Cisco so if anyone might suggest s

Re: [j-nsp] Upgrade from M10i?

On 2/3/2009 6:30 AM, Mark Johnson wrote: We need at least 4 x 10G ports and 8 x 1G ports, IPv4/IPv6, OSPFv2/OSPFv3, full BGP (peering/transit), no MPLS and that's about it. While I love Junipers I would consider Cisco so if anyone might suggest suitable Cisco models I'd also appreciate that.

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

* Pekka Savola > This is a feature. Why should BGP next-hop resolution not be able to > use BGP routes? There could be more specifics that give the right > information. Because I don't want a route from AS3307 to end up routing packets to anything but AS3307, not to AS11552 as happened in my te

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

* david@orange-ftgroup.com > Yes I understand, you want is to disable recursive lookup, but I > believe that you can't do that. Well, yes, but _only for AS-external routes_. I need recursive lookups to happen from OSPF-learnt routes, or else my border routers won't be able to use any other t

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Tore Anderson wrote: * david@orange-ftgroup.com The protocol next-hop seems to be resolvable : but it is not directly known in our IGP. So you have a recursive lookup til you find a forwarding next-hop. Yes, exactly. What surprises me, however, is that EGP routes is co

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

Yes I understand, you want is to disable recursive lookup, but I believe that you can't do that. Just for information could you give me the output of the command : show route resolution 195.18.241.97 extensive Thanks Regards David -Message d'origine- De : Tore Anderson [mailto:t...@

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

* david@orange-ftgroup.com > The protocol next-hop seems to be resolvable : but it is not directly > known in our IGP. So you have a recursive lookup til you find a > forwarding next-hop. Yes, exactly. What surprises me, however, is that EGP routes is considered at all when resolving indirec

Re: [j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

The protocol next-hop seems to be resolvable : but it is not directly known in our IGP. So you have a recursive lookup til you find a forwarding next-hop. The Junos next-hop resolver prevents infinite recursive lookup but I don't know if we can limite the number of recursive lookup allowed. R

[j-nsp] JUNOS resolves indirect next-hops using other BGP routes

Hi list, I've just noticed that my MXes appears to be happily using external BGP routes in order to resolve indirect next-hops on other BGP routes. See the following example. Due to my own paranoia it's anonymised - 10.0.0.x is my own internal prefix. 195.18.241.97 is the next-hop on my transit

Re: [j-nsp] cisco equilent com in juniper : under bgp configuration mode

This has already been discussed on list... the following URL will take you to the QPPB/DCU http://markmail.org/message/et4gc4ysscxio7ra -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Wednesday, Febr