Hi David,
we were using both version 9.2 and 9.4 with mpls oam feature, but as fas as
I know Cisco does not support this functionality. For testing BFD we teared
down logical interface, so the meaning of BFD actually come in place
(physical port stayed up).
On Cisco side I saw that BFD actually t
How long does it take for your FRR to kick in? Is your logical or
physical link actually down (you mention both below) ? I imagine if
you want BFD-speed failover, you may want to look at 9.4, which
apparently supports BFD for LDP and RSVP sessions.
David
On 03/04/2009, Robert Kern wrote:
>
Hi all,
we have run into a problem with BFD between Cisco and Juniper box when
MPLS-FRR is configured.
ISIS is used as IGP protocol and one hop MPLS-TE tunnels are configured with
link protection. BFD is configured on both sides (under IS-IS protocol).
After primary logical link is dropped betwee
Hi everyone,
I just experienced a very strange issue. We have a pair of ISG2000s
with IDP modules in an Active/Passive NSRP configuration. A few
policies have IDP processing enabled in Inline Tap mode. We're
running 6.1.0r3.0-IDP.
For no obvious cause (no one updated the config at all), sessio
Chris,
Thanks for the reply. If I understand it correctly within the rib-group the
export-rib will be inet.0 because the AMS-IX routes are within the inet.0
/ global routing table. As import-rib I will put inet.0 followed by the
vrf.inet.0 so routes will be imported into these two routing tables
The vrf-import/export policies are only for vpn route distribution.
AFAIK, you have to use rib-groups to go between a routing-instance
(vrf/l3vpn/virtual-router) and master. Use one rib-group to put the
AMS-IX routes into the vrf, and apply another to your routing protocols
in the VRF (or to a
Ha! I'm glad you like my photo. The sticker is still on there - I'm just
waiting for the boss to tell me to remove it :P
- Chris aka IPv6Freely
--
Chris Jones
CCNP, JNCIA-M
Senior Systems Manager
Pittsburg State University
E-mail: cjo...@pittstate.edu
Phone: 1.620.235.4158
--
"The production
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:48:26PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> configure any interface as follows
> interfaces {
> ge-0/0/0 {
> ether-options {
> speed {
> 1g;
> }
> 802.3ad ae0;
> }
> }
>
> JUNOS 9.4 won't let you configure that, but the upgrade validator does
>
t...@osystems.ru pisze:
> Please give me a sample configuration, security {} for the JUNOS Software
> Release [9.4R1.8] (Export edition) Enhanced Services for the BGP router
> (border router).
Here you are:
security {
zones {
security-zone zone_default {
host-inbound-traff
Hi there,
I have been working on dynamic leaking of routes between the global routing
table and the vrf routing table based on communities. But I have failed to
make it work. I have already seen multiple examples but those did not work for
me. I will give s short description of what we are tryin
On Friday 03 April 2009 04:37:42 pm michael.fi...@bt.com
wrote:
> I personally would be happier with the release cycle
> being halved - if a new release only came out every 6
> months, but each release was better tested and supported,
> then I think the end result would actually be a better
> pro
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 07:57:10AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, michael.fi...@bt.com said:
> > Isn't that what the JunOS EEOL (extended end of life) releases
> > should be (or more probably could be)?
> >
> > Juniper already have these releases they guarantee to support for 3 yea
Once upon a time, michael.fi...@bt.com said:
> Isn't that what the JunOS EEOL (extended end of life) releases
> should be (or more probably could be)?
>
> Juniper already have these releases they guarantee to support for 3 years.
>
> All (!?) they would need to do is to release more 'R' releases
Please give me a sample configuration, security {} for the JUNOS Software
Release [9.4R1.8] (Export edition) Enhanced Services for the BGP router
(border router).
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/li
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 09:57:36AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I realize that Juniper have to make a new release every
> quarter, and in most (if not all) cases, there is some new
> feature which has the potential to cause "badness" to
> systems that are already working fine.
>
> I think what I'
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: 03 April 2009 02:58
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Cc: Richard A Steenbergen
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX4200 9.4R2.9 process crash on
> previo
Michael Skulsky skrev:
Hi,
It's JunOS 9.1R2.10.
With SNMPv2c it is unfortunately the same.
On a MX480 running 9.2R3.5 I don't see this at all.Scanning all
interfaces on the unit takes ~13 sec.
/BT
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.net
17 matches
Mail list logo
