Makes sure you test them in a lab before commiting to a deployment. They don't
always perform as expected and there are unusual limitations compared to the
SSGs.
Regards,
Brett
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nethe
http://eastcoastgreenenergy.com.au/to.html
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Thanks all for your help.
Javier Ger
Hornos 690 - Buenos Aires - Argentina
Tel +54.11.5530.4531
Cel +54.9.11.3926.5017
j...@cablevision.com.ar
www.cablevision.com.ar
-Mensaje original-
De: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Enviado el: Martes, 02 de Noviembre de 2010 0
If you can find a counter for the vcp throughput then you can populate
the "utility mib" with the value and snmp poll and graph it.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.3/topics/task/operational/snmp-best-practices-utility-mib-using.html
That said for all I know there might be a enterpri
Thanks a lot to all who replied!
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:57:00PM +0300, Alexandre Snarskii wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexander Shikoff wrote:
> >
> > Filtering of outgoing prefixes is performed via to-MHost policy:
> > minot...@br1-gdr.ki# show policy-options policy-st
you have "then accept" on the of policy to-MHost so all other routes
will be accepted
( the reject will announce only 178.214.192.0/19 from static )
Tomas
Dne 09/11/2010 11:18, Alexander Shikoff napsal(a):
Hello,
On MX80-48T with JunOS 10.2R1.8 I have a BGP session with downstream
confi
I guess you want a reject instead of the last accept,
rgds,
Christian
Le 09/11/2010 11:18, Alexander Shikoff a écrit :
Hello,
On MX80-48T with JunOS 10.2R1.8 I have a BGP session with downstream
configured as follows:
minot...@br1-gdr.ki# show routing-instances World protocols bgp group
Do
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexander Shikoff wrote:
>
> Filtering of outgoing prefixes is performed via to-MHost policy:
> minot...@br1-gdr.ki# show policy-options policy-statement to-MHost
> term Default {
> from {
> route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 exact;
> }
> then rej
Hi Alexander,
* Alexander Shikoff
> Filtering of outgoing prefixes is performed via to-MHost policy:
> minot...@br1-gdr.ki# show policy-options policy-statement to-MHost
> term Default {
> from {
> route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 exact;
> }
> then reject;
> }
> term Itself {
> fro
Hi Alexander,
Cause any other routes are matched against the last unnamed term within the
policy to-MHost (the only statement "then accept" without from means that
all routes match)
2010/11/9 Alexander Shikoff
> Hello,
>
> On MX80-48T with JunOS 10.2R1.8 I have a BGP session with downstream
> co
Hi Alexander,
When using this policy you are doing the following:
-Reject sending default route
-Sending prefix 178.214.192.0/19
-Accepting all other advertisements by BGP it's default behaviour.
I think this would be fine:
show policy-options policy-statement to-MHost
term Itself {
from {
My punt would be to get rid of the last accept statement.
Without it your processing should fall through to the default BGP export
policy.
At the moment I guess you are accepting everything.
Best Regards
William Jackson
Technical Department
Sapphire Networks
-Original Message-
From:
On 09/11/10 20:12, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Julien Goodwin
> mailto:jgood...@studio442.com.au>> wrote:
>
> On 09/11/10 14:17, Keegan Holley wrote:
> > BGP full feed on an SRX650 is fine, if you disable flow mode
> (as much as
> > you can, d
Hello,
On MX80-48T with JunOS 10.2R1.8 I have a BGP session with downstream
configured as follows:
minot...@br1-gdr.ki# show routing-instances World protocols bgp group
Downstreams
neighbor 178.214.196.6
description "MHost: World";
import [ Local-Pref-400 from-MHost Deny-Rest ];
export to-MHo
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
> Hmmm, that’s interesting. There were two reasons why I was considering the
> SRX's over the SSG's for this setup.
>
> 1) I had thought that the routing functionality in JunOS would be more
> mature than in the SSGs.
>
I think it depends on
Thanks, taking the responses on board:
I think 2 x SRX210s in HA Active Passive mode connected into 2 x EX2200-24T
should work for us. I want to take a default and partial routing table from
the ISPs. Partial as in just the routes for that ISP. I think that should be
well within the capabil
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Julien Goodwin
wrote:
> On 09/11/10 14:17, Keegan Holley wrote:
> > BGP full feed on an SRX650 is fine, if you disable flow mode (as much
> as
> > you can, don't forget the ALG's).
> >
> >
> > What's the point of doing BGP on a firewall with firewallling tu
Hmmm, that’s interesting. There were two reasons why I was considering the
SRX's over the SSG's for this setup.
1) I had thought that the routing functionality in JunOS would be more mature
than in the SSGs.
2) Getting more experience with JUNOS and the SRX's as JUNOS might be the one
platfor
Found a solution:
On my loopback interface i used for the pppoe i had to enter the following
command:
ip rip copy-to-dynamic
Kind regards,
Tom
Van: Tom Teeuwen
Verzonden: zaterdag 6 november 2010 17:03
Aan: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Onderwerp:
19 matches
Mail list logo
