> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:31 PM
> To: Alan Gravett
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] IS-IS database leaking across virt
On Thursday 17 June 2010 07:28:10 am Eric Van Tol wrote:
> Due to IOS's inability to do MD5
> authentication at level 2,...
This isn't true.
IOS supports MD5 Authentication at both L1 and L2.
We have it running with no dramas:
key chain some-name-l2
key 1
key-string password
!
int gi0/1
On Thursday 17 June 2010 09:43:36 am Eric Van Tol wrote:
> I should have specified...I'm running 12.1 on Sup2
> MSFC2s. It's not supported in this version.
That makes a lot of difference, especially for the archives
:-).
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message pa
Can some one point me to the easy calculation document for RFC4761 label
allocation technique? its very confusing.
To my understanding site-offset + label-range should cover the remote site
id
So if remote site id is 30 then site-offset should be 24 and range should be
8 which covers the range fr
Eric,
Check out section 3.10.2 of RFC 1195 as I believe it answers your question
on why L1 routes are always preferred to L2 routes. There's also additional
information in RFC 5302 Section 3.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
> I do need L2 enabled, as they are the two core
Eric,
As for the L1 route preference, that's what I don't understand. If
R1/R2 are getting each other's loopbacks through L2 with a preference
of 18, but then I swap the L1/L2 preferences so that L2 now has a
pref of 15, why would the L1 route always get preferred?
IS-IS always prefers routes
In L2VPN BGP based we need the unique site id for each and every connected
CE device on PE router as label will be calculated on the based of it. But I
am bit confuse with the remote site id configuration, is it used in cross
connect or how does it work with L2VPNS?
To calculate outgoing inner lab
I do need L2 enabled, as they are the two core routers, and as such, are the
backbone of the network. It's a good suggestion, though. I'll probably end up
just going the static route way, at least until I can swap these out with two
almost-out-of-service Sup720s that can run some decent code.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mti...@globaltransit.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:37 PM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Cc: Eric Van Tol
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ISIS Routing Problem
>
> On Thursday 17 June 2010 07:28:10 am Eric Van Tol wrote:
>
> > Due to IO
Eric,
Since R1 and R2 are L1/L2 routers they'll each always prefer the L1 route
over the L2 route due to default route preference. It's an interesting
situation for sure. Removing the loopback from L1 isolates R1 and R2 from
advertising their loopbacks to R3 and R4, but with the loopback enabled f
Hi all,
I'm scratching my head over this one and I'm sure the answer is very simple. I
have four routers:
R1 --- R2
| |
| |
R3 --- R4
R1 and R2 are L1/L2 routers. R3 and R4 are L1-only routers. Due to IOS's
inability to do MD5 authentication at level 2, I cannot make R3 and R4 L1/L
Nick Ryce writes:
>Im remotely upgrading junos software from 9.1 to 9.3 and I have a usb device
>where I hav
>e issued the command
>'request system snapshot media usb'
>Now if I upgrade and the system is corrupt or legs are cut off is there a
>timeout value
>that can be set to say something like
Experts,
for M series, is it somehow possible to retrive any of these 2 figures
via SNMP?
Could not find it in the MIB documentation.
Thanks,
bit.
l...@jr4> show route summary
Autonomous system number: 1
Router ID: 10.4.4.4
inet.0: .., 637083 routes <
or
l...@jr4> show bgp summary
Hi Guys,
This is such a newb question that im slightly embarrassed to ask but I just
cant get any joy from the Juniper KB.
Im remotely upgrading junos software from 9.1 to 9.3 and I have a usb device
where I have issued the command
'request system snapshot media usb'
Now if I upgrade and the sy
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 03:39:47AM +0200, Volker D. Pallas wrote:
> I'm having an issue with an OSPFv3 neighborship between Linux/quagga
> (0.99.16) and JUNOS (10.1R2.8 on SRX-100) via a standard "ip"-tunnel:
> the dbd info sent by JUNOS always contains "mtu 0", which quagga does
> not like at all.
15 matches
Mail list logo
