Hi,
Today early in the morning around 4am we had a udp based DoS from the
Internet destinate to one of my customer network for about over 1.5hr.
The pps rate was from 165k to 245k peak and at the rate of around 90Mbps
as per the mrtg graphs. I don't have any Qos running, but I noticed
later that a
Try using the latest 9.4 release. A revision was made to address
unknown SFPs the same way as it was back in 9.1. It may or may not
work for you but its worth a try.
-Ariff
On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 23:54 +, Leigh Porter wrote:
Rather th
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 23:54 +, Leigh Porter wrote:
> Rather than ask if there is a supported SFP for this release/hardware, I'd
> like to know why SFPs that worked fine suddenly break with a point software
> upgrade!
>
> Any response from Juniper?
Upon reading Ruslan's post regarding a similar
Hi,
These seems to be a common issue here with SFPs working in one rel and
suddenly not in the next rel. This really sucks quite a lot, why is this
happening?
Rather than ask if there is a supported SFP for this release/hardware, I'd
like to know why SFPs that worked fine suddenly break with a po
Hello,
I saw the same after upgrading from 9.2R2.15 to 9.3R2.8 and have not
tried later releases yet
Switch stopped detecting two SFP-SX installed in 4x GE SFP module
I do not know what brand they were
PIC 1 REV 03A 711-021270 AR0208112594 4x GE SFP
Xcvr 0
Once upon a time, Tore Anderson said:
> Speaking of Extreme, by the way... Juniper is the first vendor whose
> gear has changed ifIndexes on me, ever.
Never used Cisco I guess?
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - th
> > Perhaps they have decided that any SFP NOT from them will no longer
> > be allowed to work due to it not having a magic number in its
> > memory stored on the SFP.
> That was my concern. I believe I will get a Juniper branded 1000baseT
> SFP and try the 9.4 upgrade again. I was surprised that
> Is that an official SFP bought from juniper?
>
> Perhaps they have decided that any SFP NOT from them will no longer
> be allowed to work due to it not having a magic number in its
> memory stored on the SFP.
That was my concern. I believe I will get a Juniper branded 1000baseT
SFP and try the
> Even though current JUNOS behaviour can be considered spec-compliant I
> would still like to see the ifIndexes being kept static - it would be a
> great feature enhanchement for those of us that (unwittingly) chose SNMP
> software that doesn't handle ifIndexes changing. As I pointed out in my
>
* Richard A Steenbergen
> Normally I'm the one yelling at Juniper when they do something stupid
> and break things for no reason, but honestly...
I admit that the tone in my first e-mail to this thread was over the
line, and for that I do apologise. I hope nobody got offended.
It was extremely
So JTAC confirm the issue is resolved in JunOS 9.4R1.8.
A PR was filed, but it's limited to Juniper employees only
(it seems).
Time to schedule some upgrades.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
ju
11 matches
Mail list logo
