Ok fair point, locally originated attacks are bad no matter you have some
times.
I'll stop hijacking this thread and let the OP get on with their choice :)
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Ben Steele wrote:
>
> > any attack > 100Mbs is goi
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Ben Steele wrote:
> any attack > 100Mbs is going to be dropped(tail-drop/rate-limit whatever
> method the ISP implements) before it even makes it to the poor software-based
> router and given the almost 300Mbs @ 64-byte spec I don't think it would have
> a problem
While I agree with your comment I don't feel it is entirely true, neither us
know where this router is to be placed on the network or its full duties, we
just know it needs enough memory for a couple of full tables and can do up
to 300Mb/s with non-sampled netflow via ethernet interfaces.
Even as
* Kris Amy:
> My requirements are fairly simple.
>
> 2-3 full BGP tables
> 120-300 MB of traffic
> Ethernet only
> Netflow with 1:1 sampling
You could easily use a PC for that. 8-/
> The both the J and the SRX have gone to 100% cpu with 20meg of traffic and
> 1:1 netflow.
We saw that as well, b
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Ben Steele wrote:
> I can't see it having a problem with non-sampled netflow but if you are
> really worried about that
> just ask your local SE when you purchase, is there a specific timer you need
> to run on your netflow to have such an issue with it?
The issue
If budget is a real concern..
Assuming you are not planning on pumping tiny packets through this (ie
dedicated voip router etc.) maybe you should take a look at something like a
Cisco 3845, will do close to 300Mbs at 64-byte packets(so obviously a lot
more with standard profile traffic sizes) and
I have briefly tested a j2320 before going to an SRX240.
The both the J and the SRX have gone to 100% cpu with 20meg of traffic and
1:1 netflow.
Regards,
Kris
On 18/11/09 2:58 PM, "Tommy Perniciaro" wrote:
> Have you checked out the j6350?
>
> It's not apples to apples but none of the junipe
My requirements are fairly simple.
2-3 full BGP tables
120-300 MB of traffic
Ethernet only
Netflow with 1:1 sampling
Regards,
Kris
On 18/11/09 1:18 PM, "Tommy Perniciaro" wrote:
> Depends on what your requirements are, any oc3? Or just Ethernet ?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 17, 2009,
>From the pricing I have received it seems the M7i is quite a bit more.
An ASR1002-F (which is all we really need) is approx $16k.
An M7i is $30k.
Regards,
Kris
On 18/11/09 1:58 PM, "Bill Blackford" wrote:
> I believe the M7i is the closest one 2 one comparison. The performance numbers
> are
I believe the M7i is the closest one 2 one comparison. The performance numbers
are almost exact and depending on your supplier should be competitively priced
with an ASR1002.
J-care on it seems higher than smartnet if you can believe that.
-b
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-bo
Hi All,
I’m just wondering what the J equivalent of a ASR1002 is?
It seems an SRX240 is way under powered and an M7i quite a fair bit more
expensive.
Regards,
Kris
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailma
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has an example config for a layer2
cross-connect between and atm pvc using rfc1483 bridged encapsulation
and a vlan on an IQ2 GE port? I'm running 9.6R1 currently and it's an
atm1 oc-3 card.
Thanks,
Kevin
___
juniper
Ross Vandegrift writes:
>It doesn't work as an RPC call on 9.5R2:
Sorry about that. All JS RPCs should work in NETCONF mode. This
is now PR 488377.
Thanks,
Phil
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:43:31PM -0500, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Ross Vandegrift writes:
> >Looks like I spoke too soon - the NETCONF equivalent of
> > doesn't provide format control - it always returns
> >the full XML tree. I can use NETCONF to call the op script, but at
> >that point, ssh does bas
Ross Vandegrift writes:
>Looks like I spoke too soon - the NETCONF equivalent of
> doesn't provide format control - it always returns
>the full XML tree. I can use NETCONF to call the op script, but at
>that point, ssh does basically the same thing without needing to
>distribute a script to all of
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:37:42AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 02:57:43PM -0800, Curtis Call wrote:
> > Would "file compare ..." output, rather than "show | compare"
> > output, be good enough? Because you can do that through an op
> > script. Couldn't these RPC calls
System: mx960
OS: 9.6R1.13
I am using Torrus (http://www.torrus.org) to collect and graph data on a new
mx960 pair that we just put into place. Since I started collecting data the
following message has started to appear in the logs of both:
Nov 17 16:25:15 my.router snmpd[1816]: SNMP_SUBAGENT
SW1 is the RE
SW5 is the Backup
2, 3 & 4 are Linecards
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:05 AM, wrote:
> Who is the RE and who is the Backup RE?
> Although SW 1 is connected directly to SW2 and SW3 it goes to one of them
> through all the other switches, I think it is SW3 which SW1 goes all the
> round.
>
Interesting, so you are saying it doesn't always take the shortest path?
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:05 AM, wrote:
> Who is the RE and who is the Backup RE?
> Although SW 1 is connected directly to SW2 and SW3 it goes to one of them
> through all the other switches, I think it is SW3 which SW1 goes
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 02:57:43PM -0800, Curtis Call wrote:
> Would "file compare ..." output, rather than "show | compare"
> output, be good enough? Because you can do that through an op
> script. Couldn't these RPC calls be translated into an equivalent
> NETCONF script?
This looks perfect!
Hi Shekar,
You say that the router model is M20
> Could you please clarify this point. how to downgrade? why not able
> to see the interfaces? The router model is M20.
Strange that you mention xe-6/0/0 or ge-4/0/0. As these interfaces
can't exist on M20. There are no FPC slots #6 and #4 on M20.
21 matches
Mail list logo
