Hi Doug
Thanks for your reply, my question is that "is it possible to make
aggregation in two links from juniper side and the other side is connected
to two different Layer-2 Cisco switches for load balance?" currently I'm
connected this setup but one physical interface as primary and the other
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of medrees
> Subject: [j-nsp] Validation failed warning message
>
> I faces strange Warning message when I tried to validate the
> new
> JUNOS version 10.1,
If I understand your question correctly ...
LACP requires a single signaling plane, so the remote devices need to be a
virtual-chassis, mc-lag, VSS or some other virtualization technology.
If you use a static LAG, there's no signaling at all, and the above still
applies, as the packets have to
Hi Expertise
Im wondering from strange behavior for two IBGP session included in
JNCIP_StudyGuide, I have one router make aggregation for the whole network
10/8(R5 in case study of EBGP) and where the routers inside the other ISIS
are level-1 routers (R1 & R6) so they reach the Level1-2 rout
Hi Expertise
Im going to create new Aggregate Ethernet for M10i router to load
balance the traffic among these interfaces and I know that juniper router
can do this aggregation even if the remote side is connected to two
different devices, so in this case I wont deploy LACP and will use
Hi Expertise
I faces strange Warning message when I tried to validate the new
JUNOS version 10.1, 10.2, 10.4 before upgrade my M120 router from V9.5 to
any upper version so Im afraid to go with this upgrading, so please if
anyone has experience with this message reply me if it is reall
Den 15.03.2011 23:19, skrev Doug Hanks:
I can confirm this as well. Junos Transformation/Ironman started with 10.4R2.
There should be a meaningful difference. I know they've increased the
regression testing scripts by nearly 500%.
Here is one meaningful difference - DHCP relay used to work
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:13:33PM +0100, magno wrote:
> I can confirm, 10.4 is the first JUNOS release developed with a new
> methodology.
>
> This would allow Juniper to catch much more bugs before releasing the code
> than in the past.
Such as 10.4R2 not showing transceivers on 16-port 10GE MP
Hello Nathan,
Using MX since the first code available for this platform, we always had
strange issue with R2 version.
I mean EACH time, and moving to R3, most of the bugs was fixed or non impacting
the production Network.
Our SE also assures us to move to 10.4 R2, but until R3, we will stay wit
I can confirm this as well. Junos Transformation/Ironman started with 10.4R2.
There should be a meaningful difference. I know they've increased the
regression testing scripts by nearly 500%.
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck
Hi Nathan and all,
I can confirm, 10.4 is the first JUNOS release developed with a new
methodology.
This would allow Juniper to catch much more bugs before releasing the code
than in the past.
Hope this helps
Magno.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Nathan Sipes wrote:
> Funny My SE a
Funny My SE assures me that they have made significant changes to the way
that the JUNOS code is being developed. Which will result in me finally
after four years getting a stable code image. 10.4 is supposed to fix all my
issues with the R3 release.
Any one taking odds on this?
On Tue, Mar 15,
Hello,
We are using an ERX310 for DSL aggregation (PPPoE)
A day ago we had a strange problem.
All PPPoE session were disconnected and then they tried to reconnect,
normally this shoudn't be a problem.
But the users could not authenticate because de ERX used an IP-address from
one of the loopback
On 03/15/11 13:57, Steve Feldman wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
>> ...
>> We recently spent a fair bit of time trying to decide between 10.3R3 and
>> 10.4R2 for a lot of MX960 and EX8200 upgrades, and came to the
>> conclusion that 10.4R2 was significantly b
On Mar 15, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
...
We recently spent a fair bit of time trying to decide between 10.3R3
and
10.4R2 for a lot of MX960 and EX8200 upgrades, and came to the
conclusion that 10.4R2 was significantly buggier.
What sorts of bugs did you see in 10.4R2?
Hi Expertise
I faces strange Warning message when I tried to validate the new
JUNOS version 10.1, 10.2, 10.4 before upgrade my M120 router from V9.5 to
any upper version so Im afraid to go with this upgrading, so please if
anyone has experience with this message reply me if it is reall
Hello,
That work around worked! Not ideal but it'll do for now. I have a case open
with
JTAC. I'm seeing it in 10.2R3 and 10.2S6.
Serge
- Original Message
From: Andy Vance
To: Serge Vautour ; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 1:52:53 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] if
Hi,
Need to monitor RE1 and RE2 CPU usage via snmp using jnxOperatingCPU...but I
don´t know why from both REs I received the same value (from router cli, I can
see that values are not identical between the two REs). Here you can see:
X> show snmp mib walk jnxOperatingCPU.9
jnxOperating
We are running 10.0S9 right now. 10.0S10 introduced a bug that leaves the CPU
running at 100% on our M-series, and this bug is resolved in 10.0S13 which I
think is out already.
We haven't put 10.0S13 in production yet, but I suspect that this will be as
close we will get to a bug-free release
Serge,
I saw this same behavior in 10.2R3.10 but didn't open a JTAC case on it.
I haven't seen it since I moved to 10.2S6 but that doesn't mean it isn't
still present ;-)
My workaround for this was to edit the interface a time or two and
commit the changes, eventually the ifAlias would be populat
Sorry about missing the details! I'm seeing this on 10.2S6. I've continued to
test after sending the first post and found that it is only happening on some
interfaces. I can't find anything yet that sets the "broken" interfaces apart.
I'll continue to test and open a case with JTAC if necessary.
Agree with Rich on this. Slow currently is practically worthless.
On Mar 15, 2011 12:29 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:15:52PM +, Giovanni Bellac wrote:
>>
>> The problem is, that the VC is not exporting sflow data to the
>> collector.
>
> We found a number of
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:15:52PM +, Giovanni Bellac wrote:
>
> The problem is, that the VC is not exporting sflow data to the
> collector.
We found a number of sFlow issues in our testing. For example, it didn't
actually export any data at all on routed interfaces until 10.2. Of
course i
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Serge Vautour said:
> > I'm not seeing sub-interface descriptions show up in ifAlias. Has anyone
> seen
> > this before?
>
> No, I haven't had that problem. You didn't say what platform, JUNOS
> version, etc. though.
>
I'
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:25:59PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if it possible to configure something equivalent to the
> EX2500's Uplink Failure Detection on the JUNOS-based EX series
> switches? I want to designate a couple of interfaces as uplink ports,
> and if they a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:43:25PM +1100, Chris Kawchuk wrote:
> Just installed 14 x MX960s for a large Aussie Mobile company - The
> release train we've decided on is 10.4R2 for now, due to EEOL support;
> and the fact that 10.0 didn't support a few of the cards we added.
> (16x10GE Trio for ex
Once upon a time, Serge Vautour said:
> I'm not seeing sub-interface descriptions show up in ifAlias. Has anyone seen
> this before?
No, I haven't had that problem. You didn't say what platform, JUNOS
version, etc. though.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Se
Hello,
I'm not seeing sub-interface descriptions show up in ifAlias. Has anyone seen
this before?
MYBOX-re0> show interfaces ge-5/0/1
extensive
Physical interface: ge-5/0/1, Enabled, Physical link is Up
Interface index: 210,
Haven't touched 10.4 yet, but 10.0R3.10 has been very solid for us
in what sounds to be a similar environment. Mostly L2VPNs here, with
some VPLS (BGP and LDP) and VRF thrown in on MXs (240/480) and T640s
(full table on all of them, in a VRF), 2 of which are acting as RRs in
a limited capacity.
Hello all,
we are running 2x EX4200 in a VC with BGP default route 0.0.0.0/0 over ports
ge-0/0/23 and ge-1/0/23
The JunOS version is 10.0S10
The interfaces ge-0/0/0 and ge-1/0/0 are a aggregate interface "ae0" and
trunked
to the rack-switch.
The problem is, that the VC is not exporting sflo
Hi,
* Keegan Holley
> I'm not aware of a protocol that can shut down switchports. There's
> something in the optical world that will shut down a gig port if the
> sonet links it traverses flap, but that wouldn't help here. Op-scripts
> maybe?
The EX2500 has the required functionality, the Cisc
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Tore Anderson <
tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if it possible to configure something equivalent to the
> EX2500's Uplink Failure Detection on the JUNOS-based EX series switches?
> I want to designate a couple of interfaces as uplin
Hi,
I'm wondering if it possible to configure something equivalent to the
EX2500's Uplink Failure Detection on the JUNOS-based EX series switches?
I want to designate a couple of interfaces as uplink ports, and if they
all go down, all the other ports on the switch should be disabled as well.
I w
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Bjørn Tore wrote:
> Den 15.03.2011 09:43, skrev Chris Kawchuk:
>>
>> I'd like to standardize all the other devices in my network to 10.4; once
>> the "suggest JTAC releases" goes past 10.2R3 for things like SRX platforms.
>
> Second that. We tried 10.4R2.7 on
Den 15.03.2011 09:43, skrev Chris Kawchuk:
Just installed 14 x MX960s for a large Aussie Mobile company - The release
train we've decided on is 10.4R2 for now, due to EEOL support; and the fact
that 10.0 didn't support a few of the cards we added. (16x10GE Trio for example
didn't come till 10.
Just installed 14 x MX960s for a large Aussie Mobile company - The release
train we've decided on is 10.4R2 for now, due to EEOL support; and the fact
that 10.0 didn't support a few of the cards we added. (16x10GE Trio for example
didn't come till 10.2).
I have also hear that 10.4 also included
I know the subject of JunOS versions has been beaten to death, but I've
never seen this specific question asked or answered. I'm trying to decide
between 10.0 or 10.4 for a network of MX, M (10i, 120 and 40e) and J series
routers. I'd like to choose a train with extended support. I'm trying to
d
37 matches
Mail list logo
