How to create FBF for traffic originated locally on router (traffic from
itself) , similarly with cisco local PBR ?
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:24:31PM -0800, Derick Winkworth wrote:
> We tried 10.0S10 and S11, but there is a bug that drives CPU to 100%
> indefinitely if you have a large config (something to do with socket
> used to pass config info to various processes).
As a note for all the people asking ab
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 1/28/11 2:35 PM, Keith wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 2:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
MPC1, and RE-S-
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 07:10:27PM -0500, Jonathan Towne wrote:
>
> I actually find myself in the same situation as the OP, as I just
> powered up and started doing some initial configuration, testing, and
> most of all: some learning on our new MX480 (with MX-MPC2-3D), it
> seems to have shipp
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Simon Chen wrote:
> Hi jof,
>
> I'm using mx-240, and I don't see the DHCP option... Can you tell me
> the exact configure path that I should check?
Sometimes options can be platform and version-specific. What version
of JunOS are you running?
Cheers,
jof
___
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Simon Chen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This might be a stupid question...
>>
>> I am trying to configure a GRE tunnel between two Juniper routers. One
>> is connecting to the Internet with a public IP, the oth
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Simon Chen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This might be a stupid question...
>>
>> I am trying to configure a GRE tunnel between two Juniper routers. One
>> is connecting to the Internet with a public IP, the oth
We tried 10.0S10 and S11, but there is a bug that drives CPU to 100%
indefinitely if you have a large config (something to do with socket used to
pass config info to various processes).
10.0S9 doesn't have that bug, so that is what we are using now. We have
MPLS/RSVP/OSPF/BGP/RIP/NAT/GRE/IPS
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Simon Chen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This might be a stupid question...
>
> I am trying to configure a GRE tunnel between two Juniper routers. One
> is connecting to the Internet with a public IP, the other one is
> unfortunately behind a broadband router --- this is a
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:16:49PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen scribbled:
# On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
# >
# > Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
# > MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
#
# Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morning admittin
On 1/28/11 2:35 PM, Keith wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 2:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
>>> MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
>>
>> Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morni
Hi all,
This might be a stupid question...
I am trying to configure a GRE tunnel between two Juniper routers. One
is connecting to the Internet with a public IP, the other one is
unfortunately behind a broadband router --- this is a temporary setup,
but I need to get it to work...
What is my bes
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:15:08PM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
> We're still running 10.0R3.10 on MX platform (MX480) and with an
> uptime of about 261 days and "no obvious issues" (notice I choose my
> words carefully there) is there a reason to upgrade or just sit back
> at this point? I reali
My vote is for 10.0 or 10.4 since they are extended support releases,
meaning the Juniper will offer bug support for a much longer term than the
releases in between. I agree that 10.0 seems stable. I wouldn't recommend
10.4 since it is still an early release. R1 and R2 of a new version usually
h
We're still running 10.0R3.10 on MX platform (MX480) and with an uptime of
about 261 days and "no obvious issues" (notice I choose my words carefully
there) is there a reason to upgrade or just sit back at this point? I
realize this is a bit of a loaded question but today we have no issues that
we
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:35:11PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard. I see that 10.4R1.9 is out. Have you had a go at that
> version yet?
Someone I know tried it on MX and it blew up catastrophically, so we
didn't even bother looking at it. 10.4 is the next extended EoL release
after 10.
On 1/28/2011 2:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morning admitting the obvious,
that 10.2R1/R2/R3 and 10
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:32:06PM +, Bill Blackford wrote:
> Anyone on list know whether this only applies to DPC MPC line cards on
> chassis-based MX's (240, 480, 960) or would this include the MX80 as
> well?
They're talking specifically about bugs related to the interoperation of
DPC (I
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Keith wrote:
>
> Currently the box is running 10.2R1.8. It has a MIC-3D 20 port card,
> MPC1, and RE-S-2000.
Juniper just put out a tech bulletin this morning admitting the obvious,
that 10.2R1/R2/R3 and 10.3R1 for Trio (MPC) cards are massively broken
Hi.
Our 480 is now online and getting it ready.
As I have seen many messages on this list regarding buggy JunOS versions
and before I go to JTAC and see what they suggest I'd like to get some
feedback from here.
We will be doing straight ethernet, speaking BGP to our upstream, only
taking a
yeah or even assign the protocol active interfaces to an interface group
which then can be associated with a firewall filter applied to the loopback
interface.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Jensen Tyler wrote:
> You could filter by configured interface and IP Space you own( or use in
> your co
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:32:06PM +, Bill Blackford wrote:
> Anyone on list know whether this only applies to DPC MPC line cards
> on chassis-based MX's (240, 480, 960) or would this include the MX80
> as well?
I would assume that it applies to MX80 as well, because the MX80 uses
the same
You could filter by configured interface and IP Space you own( or use in your
core). Not what you are looking for but easy to do.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of David Ball
Sent: Friday, January 28, 20
Brain stuck in Friday mode. I've created a prefix-list using apply-path
which looks at 'protocols bgp group <*> neighbor <*>' to get a list of my
BGP neighbour IPs. Works fine. Now I'm trying to think of a way to do the
same with OSPF neighbor IPs (and perhaps even LDP, RSVP, etc). Not quite
Anyone on list know whether this only applies to DPC MPC line cards on
chassis-based MX's (240, 480, 960) or would this include the MX80 as well?
http://www.juniper.net/alerts/viewalert.jsp?txtAlertNumber=PSN-2010-12-112&actionBtn=Search
PSN Issue : In Junos software releasess 10.2R2, 10.2R3,
25 matches
Mail list logo
