Hello,
I am currently looking into an issue where we are getting temperature alerts on
a variety of different JunOS devices within one of our facilities.
Unfortunately when I go to track down the changes all the switches are running
at under 40c which is within the thresholds yet we still get a
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:01:36PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Thanks Richard...
>
> The MAC filtering idea proposed earlier by another friendly person was
> quite helpful and solved the issue. That Cisco MAC is actually what
> we wanted to see however other MAC's were showing up from the
> inte
Thanks Richard...
The MAC filtering idea proposed earlier by another friendly person was quite
helpful and solved the issue. That Cisco MAC is actually what we wanted to
see however other MAC's were showing up from the intermediary switches along
the path (Cisco 7600 - EX4200 - EX4200 - EX4200 in
Excerpts from Richard A Steenbergen's message of Thu Mar 25 16:52:15 -0700 2010:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:13:31PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
> > The problem I'm facing we're tripping the port security on the exchange
> > switch:
> >
> > Mar 24 15:36:52.773 EDT: %PORT_SECURITY-2-PSECURE_VIOLATI
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:13:31PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
> The problem I'm facing we're tripping the port security on the exchange
> switch:
>
> Mar 24 15:36:52.773 EDT: %PORT_SECURITY-2-PSECURE_VIOLATION: Security
> violation occurred, caused by MAC address 000b.45b6.f500 on port
> FastEther
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:51:20AM -0700, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> In looking at the EX platforms though, this doesn't seem in line with
> Juniper's design goals though (not that I actually know what they
> planned). It seems like most of the hardware ('cept the EX-8200) comes
> in a fixed configu
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:13:59AM -0700, Dan Farrell wrote:
> Flash gets a bad rap. I think most people have heard of supposed
> horror stories or they see the cycle limit and get wary.
>
> But I'm wondering... has anyone in this list actually had a personal
> flash horror story? I don't have on
Didn't word it right.. I meant shouldn't ...
I was taking some example out from SRX.. where customers choose to
log “session-init” and “session-close”, it could generates high rate of IO
activity to /var/log/rtlogd. Though its not a problem logging all these; but
on a compact flash when we have a
Thanks again - we have some Ex4200's in our lab currently so will test this
out... again, appreciate the fast response times..;)
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Lassoff [mailto:j...@thejof.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:39 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: jnsp
Subject: RE: [j-nsp]
Excerpts from Paul Stewart's message of Thu Mar 25 13:09:51 -0700 2010:
> Thanks very much for the reply...
>
> The AMS-IX guide I've been through but their Juniper section isn't nearly as
> detailed as the Cisco side... good guide for sure. ;)
>
> The MAC shown in my example below is actually th
Excerpts from Paul Stewart's message of Thu Mar 25 13:09:51 -0700 2010:
> Thanks very much for the reply...
>
> The AMS-IX guide I've been through but their Juniper section isn't nearly as
> detailed as the Cisco side... good guide for sure. ;)
>
> The MAC shown in my example below is actually th
Thanks very much for the reply...
The AMS-IX guide I've been through but their Juniper section isn't nearly as
detailed as the Cisco side... good guide for sure. ;)
The MAC shown in my example below is actually the correct MAC for the layer3
facing interface ... so you're suggesting to create a f
Excerpts from Paul Stewart's message of Thu Mar 25 12:13:31 -0700 2010:
> I'm looking for feedback from folks on the list who are service providers
> and connect to peering exchange points (IE. PAIX, Equinix, LINX etc). I'm
> looking for recommended configuration for layer2 connectivity via an EX
Hi there.
We're originally a Cisco shop slowly converting to Juniper .
I'm looking for feedback from folks on the list who are service providers
and connect to peering exchange points (IE. PAIX, Equinix, LINX etc). I'm
looking for recommended configuration for layer2 connectivity via an E
On 10-03-25 9:51 AM, "Jonathan Lassoff" wrote:
> Excerpts from Dan Farrell's message of Thu Mar 25 09:13:59 -0700 2010:
>> Flash gets a bad rap. I think most people have heard of supposed horror
>> stories or they see the cycle limit and get wary.
>>
>> But I'm wondering... has anyone in this
Ived tested this with a 3750 in my lab connected to a MX480 and an EX4200.
From what I remember it functions both ways. I am used gige. I will very and
get back to you.
I am testing 9.6R3.8 on both Juniper and 12.2(50)SE3 on the 3750.
Im
--Original Message--
From: Philip Palanchi
Se
I have enabled LLDP between several mx240's JUNOS 9.6R1.13 with
DPCE-R-20GE-2XGE and several cisco 6506's. LLDP works fine in both directions
for anything connected by a 10G interface. None of the mx240's sees the cisco
LLDP neighbor connected by 1GE interface. However, the cisco's see the
m
My opinion. As long as I get a decent lifetime out of it who cares. This is
what managements systems are for, to backup my devices. Service contracts take
care of the rest.
Hardware fails, just the nature of the game.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Lass
Dear All
I am preparing my JNCIE-ER . if anyone is also preparing contact me so we
can share the material .
Best regard
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Excerpts from Dan Farrell's message of Thu Mar 25 09:13:59 -0700 2010:
> Flash gets a bad rap. I think most people have heard of supposed horror
> stories or they see the cycle limit and get wary.
>
> But I'm wondering... has anyone in this list actually had a personal flash
> horror story? I do
what do you think it uses currently, a 2GB hard drive? :)
--
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4974 (20100325) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:35:39AM +0300, Alexandre Snarskii wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 06:37:58PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> > EX4200
> > JUNOS 10.1R1.8
> >
> > Anyone else notice that packets captured by an egress analyzer have
> > bogus 802.1Q tags? Originally I thought that egress
Yes, I have the same problem here on EX[4,3]200 with XFP. SFPs seems to
work OK however.
Are these original Juniper XFPs? Because mine are not and if it's a
problem with Juniper original we'll have to wait until Juniper fixes
it... otherwise it might be a problem with the actual XFP.
---
Martin
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 06:37:58PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> EX4200
> JUNOS 10.1R1.8
>
> Anyone else notice that packets captured by an egress analyzer have
> bogus 802.1Q tags? Originally I thought that egress mirroring was
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/information-prod
24 matches
Mail list logo
