On 1/27/10 8:32 AM, Taqdir Singh wrote:
Hi All,
could anyone please clear me what is the actual diff between
JNCIS-E and JNCIS-M
I know M stands for M series routers.
which one is most latest ?
what is the exam fee for JNCIS ? can we do it directly without giving JNCIA
?
JNC
Taqdir,
JNCIS-E - JNCIS for E-Series
JNCIS-M - for M-Series
For your other questions, check out the URL below.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/training/certification/
-Eddie
On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Taqdir Singh wrote:
> Hi All,
> could anyone please clear me what is the ac
Hi All,
could anyone please clear me what is the actual diff between
JNCIS-E and JNCIS-M
I know M stands for M series routers.
which one is most latest ?
what is the exam fee for JNCIS ? can we do it directly without giving JNCIA
?
--
Taqdir Singh
Network Engineering
(+91) 991-17
Hello,
Thanks for your reaction.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:47:44AM -0800, Andy Vance wrote:
> Without config snapshots of the VRF, the import policy and the export policy,
>it is difficult to say why you see this behavior, I have some ideas but I don't
> want to guess. Can you provide config sn
Hi Luis,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 05:41:45PM +0100, Luis Ximenez Gomez wrote:
>
> Well, if you use the command "vrf-target import target::yy" then
> everything which is in your local VRF will be advertised via MBGP to other
> peers with a matching RT. <--- your connected subnet will go
>
> I
Without config snapshots of the VRF, the import policy and the export policy,
it is difficult to say why you see this behavior, I have some ideas but I don't
want to guess. Can you provide config snapshots? I don't want to assume and
head down some road that may not be relevant.
Cheers,
Andy
Have you got vrf-table-label configured ?
On 1/26/10 4:51 PM, Jeroen Valcke wrote:
Hi,
I'm doing some testing with simple plain L3VPNs and ran into some weird
behaviour. At least I think it's weird. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.
A CE router is exchanging routes with the PE through BGP.
Well, if you use the command "vrf-target import target::yy" then
everything which is in your local VRF will be advertised via MBGP to other
peers with a matching RT. <--- your connected subnet will go
In the other hand, if you use "vrf-export " then more granularity
is available and you wil
It sounds like you are using vrf-export for policy. If so, it automatically
advertises the direct subnet as soon as the CE next hop is learned via some
other router exchange, say OSPF. If you use explicit vrf-export you will return
to the default behavior and you will need to match on and accept
Hi,
I'm doing some testing with simple plain L3VPNs and ran into some weird
behaviour. At least I think it's weird. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.
A CE router is exchanging routes with the PE through BGP. These routes
are correctly advertised 'over' the L3VPN towards other CE routers.
However
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 07:15:59 pm Sean Clarke wrote:
> R Cards do QOS, but not per unit .. only per port.
>
> Firewalling per unit will also wor, i.e. policing
Yes, just as I thought... thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mes
On 1/26/10 12:06 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Really? The -R cards won't do QoS? I haven't tried the -R
cards, but was thinking of giving them a shot!
Documentation suggests they'll do QoS, but not as deep as
the -R-Q models.
Cheers,
Mark.
R Cards do QOS, but not per unit .. only per port.
Fire
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 05:32:24 pm Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> You don't need -Q cards to do per-subinterface policing,
> just cos AFAIK.
Really? The -R cards won't do QoS? I haven't tried the -R
cards, but was thinking of giving them a shot!
Documentation suggests they'll do QoS, but
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 02:58:22 pm Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> Well I guess I'll go ahead and stick this one in the
> archives incase anybody else hits the same problem. Here
> is what happens when you try to install 9.6R2 (the
> website still recommends ver 9.6R1, go figure :P) from a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:58:22AM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Which does a wonderful job of wiping out the entire box. The only way to
> recover is to load a new image from the boot loader via console, like
> so:
Depending on wether the SRX was partitioned for dual-root or not (see th
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:35:48AM +0300, Cyrill Malevanov wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 5:12 AM, David Coulson wrote:
>
> > I am trying to configure input rate limiting on an ae0 unit on a MX240
> > unning 9.4R2.9... Everything I have tried so far has had no effect on
> > interface input rate
On Jan 25, 2010, at 5:12 AM, David Coulson wrote:
> I am trying to configure input rate limiting on an ae0 unit on a MX240 unning
> 9.4R2.9... Everything I have tried so far has had no effect on interface
> input rates.
>
> * policier with firewall filter applied to interface
> * input-traffic
9.6R1 is an old release. As far as I seen, DHCP relay functions were fixed in
later releases, try to upgrade to 9.6R2 or R3.
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Kevin Wormington wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm using (or at least trying to) extended DHCP Relay on JunOS 9.6R1.3 on
> M7i. I have noticed that
18 matches
Mail list logo
