I really appreciate all for their inputs. Thanks a lot.
Is there any caveat in RTG, Can we easily get rid of STP running?? do you
recommend it or not??
Is there any special socket required for powering this chassis up?? as we
need industrial sockets in case of Cisco 6500.
regards,
Muhammad
Tore Anderson wrote:
* Richard A Steenbergen
Correct. I actually found some old gripes about this when I searched
j-nsp after noticing the problem, but it is a big enough issue that I
think it needs to be repeated again (and again and again, until it
gets fixed :P).
I'll be happy to join the
Means UTM has issues as well ??
How about the support of multicast ?? Has any one experienced running any
multicast based application across this Firewall??
regards
Muhammad Fahad Khan
JNCIP - M/T # 834
IT Specialist
Global Technology Services, IBM
fa...@pk.ibm.com
+92-321-2370510
I've had some serious issues with both my SRX 210 and 2x240s.
The SRX210 I have here at home was having all kinds of issues reconnecting if
there was an ADSL drop. A restart routing command would fix this. This issue
seems to have been mostly fixed in 10.0R2 and 10.1R1.
The pair of SRX240s on
Hi folks...
We just cut in another couple of EX4200's into production overnight. These
are the first deployments that don't have pure GigE ports - several ports
100/full.
When I did the configuration I set the ether-options for 100/full ... most
of the ports are facing Cisco switches.
I know there was/is an issue on the older code versions of sessions being
built with the incorrect time out (if I recall correctly it was 48 hours).
It's easy to see though all one would have to do is look at a type of
session that you know would have a short duration time (such as ICMP or UDP)
Hi folks .. thanks to those who replied offline to my last question
(speed/duplex) - the answer was sitting right in front of me the whole time
lol
I have a new problem ... with our EX4200's we face many customer switches
and I need to filter BPDU's out. In the Cisco world we would setup a
What is the answer? :)
--Original Message--
From: Paul Stewart
Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] BPDU Question
Sent: Mar 23, 2010 10:21 AM
Hi folks .. thanks to those who replied offline to my last question
(speed/duplex) - the
Hi Paul,
We've faced the same problem in the past and we created a firewall filter which
does what you want:
{master:0}[edit firewall family ethernet-switching filter BPDU_FILTER]
term 1 {
from {
destination-mac-address {
01:80:c2:00:00:00;
}
}
then {
Hi,
I am running into these errors on a virtual-chassis with 2 EX4200's:
Mar 22 16:14:20 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning set
Mar 22 16:14:40 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning cleared
Does anyone know how I can link this to the interface these messages come
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 03:48:21PM +0100, Wouter van den Bergh wrote:
Mar 22 16:14:20 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning set
Mar 22 16:14:40 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning cleared
Does anyone know how I can link this to the interface these messages come
JTAC have confirmed that the port has to be crossed to have the filter
come into effect.
Hence why L2 vlan filters (VACLs) have their input/output meaning
reversed.
Not sure if my previous email makes sense, but thought I would update
here anyway.
Regards,
C.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:16:36PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
protocols {
connections {
interface-switch test {
interface xe-1/0/0.101;
interface xe-1/0/1.101;
}
}
}
Well for everyone woh asked, I tried the following on an EX8208
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:27:22AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 03:48:21PM +0100, Wouter van den Bergh wrote:
Mar 22 16:14:20 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning set
Mar 22 16:14:40 chas[796]: link 1 SFP receive power low warning cleared
Does
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 02:21:57PM -0400, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Hi all,
Any experiences with 9.6R3.8 on MX? I have 9.5R4.3 installed on some
newly acquired MX boxes, per the advice of this list. However, I
Oh btw, a word a warning about 9.5R4 after everyone has hyped it up on
this list as the
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 08:50:01 pm Paul Stewart wrote:
When I did the configuration I set the ether-options for
100/full ... most of the ports are facing Cisco
switches. All the ports that were hard coded would not
come up at all - the minute I removed the ether-options
they came up
16 matches
Mail list logo
