Re: [j-nsp] SRX and multihome gateway

2010-10-19 Thread bizza
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Spunk Meyer spunkmeye...@gmail.com wrote: Hi bizza, Please check this link: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/community/junos/script-automation/library/event/enable-primary-nexthop/ You might need to edit the script to fit in your needs. thank you, this script

[j-nsp] DHCP Relay with Option 82 (SRX)

2010-10-19 Thread Frédéric Gabut-Deloraine
Hello, I'm trying to set up dhcp relay with option 82 on a juniper srx210-hm (10.1R1.8). The relay works well but when I configure under the interface ([edit forwarding-options helpers bootp interface XXX], or under the bootp global configuration ([edit forwarding-options helpers bootp]) this :

[j-nsp] Route export from VRF

2010-10-19 Thread Alexander Shikoff
Hello! I have a question about route export from VRF. I have following vrf configured on my MX80: World { instance-type vrf; interface ge-1/0/4.0; interface ge-1/0/5.0; interface ae0.74; interface lo0.0; route-distinguisher 42546:0; vrf-target target:42546:0;

Re: [j-nsp] Problem of Forwarding on VPN using vrf-table-label.

2010-10-19 Thread Ger, Javier
Dear community, just to add some additional comments/questions about this topic. We have 2 PE (logical systems) with 2 VRF belonging to same VPN (working with AFI IPv4 and SAFI VPNv4). - VRF-A in PE1 has only 1 CE1 facing interface and a PE-CE eBGP session is established throught it. - VRF-A

Re: [j-nsp] Problem of Forwarding on VPN using vrf-table-label.

2010-10-19 Thread Harry Reynolds
This is as all as per design. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos95/swconfig-vpns/id-10978770.html By default the route lookup action for l3vpn is performed on the vrf label. This prevents IP L3 lookup and related functions like egress firewall and arp from occurring on

[j-nsp] Why family Ethernet Switching under unit 0

2010-10-19 Thread Muhammad Rehan
Hi Team, I have a simple query,why family ethernet switching is always required to configure under unit 0 , why we are not able to use unit other than unit 0. Regards ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

[j-nsp] ERX LDP protocol preference switch

2010-10-19 Thread Thedin Guruge
Hi All, This is really JUNOSe related query, i'm wondering if there's a similar way on JUNOSe to change LDP protocol preference as set protocol ldp preference on JUNOS. When LDP and RSVP LSPs co-exist on ERXs LDP seems to take precedence. Thanks, Thedin

Re: [j-nsp] Why family Ethernet Switching under unit 0

2010-10-19 Thread Ramesh
This is by design. Since having more than one unit's would not make sense on family ethernet switching, one special unit had to be defined. So I guess they went with 0. On family inet, there can be many more than one units. On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Muhammad Rehan

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX240

2010-10-19 Thread David Ball
On 19 October 2010 19:16, Giuliano Cardozo Medalha giulian...@uol.com.brwrote: - Juniper will release new RE cards (DUAL and QUAD CORE with 16 and 32 GB DRAM) Anyone heard if Juniper is thinking of going the route of running a backup version of JUNOS on the 2nd core to facilitate the

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 vs MX240

2010-10-19 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 01:50:59PM -0400, Tim Donahue wrote: Hi all, We are working on a new colo deployment and we are trying to choose between the MX80 and the MX240. With our current budget the MX240 is definitely a stretch over the MX80. On paper, the MX80 has more than enough