Hi there,
I have the following issue:
switch1--(ciscoPE)-(MX80)switch2
switch3
Switch1 is connected to a Cisco PE
Switch2 and switch 2 are connected to a MX80 in the same bridge domain.
The bridge-domain is configured in the
If vlan tags are to be removed in VPLS PW how to demultiplex b/w bridge
domains in a virtual switch ?
Krasi
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, jbues...@jb-internetworking.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have the following issue:
switch1--(ciscoPE)-(MX80)switch2
Thanks, the problem was in the router interface configuration that is facing
the firewall, now its working fine.
BR,
-Original Message-
From: ben b [mailto:benboyd.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:25 AM
To: Walaa Abdel razzak
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
Hello:
I am trying to eval netflow collector for multi-vendor hardwares, anyone
could suggest any good commercial netflow collector running on Linux?
Thanks,
~mike
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:18:47PM +0100, bas wrote:
Hi All,
Well, after this thread I still didn't know which version I should
choose for our 960 with MPC's only.
From what I read it was; In the field (Ras, Raphael) we see 10.3r3 as
the better choice, and people who talk to JTAC say 10.4r2
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:18:47PM +0100, bas wrote:
From what I read it was; In the field (Ras, Raphael) we see 10.3r3 as
the better choice, and people who talk to JTAC say 10.4r2 is the
better choice.
Oh and btw, I have multiple confirmed reports of YET ANOTHER major
memory leak in mib2d in
Hi Experts
While testing the failover in SRX650 cluster. I have removed the control
link between the primary and secondary. The secondary node went to
ineligible mode. The secondry FW is still accessible through OoB
interface. When I returned back the control link I couldn't reach the FW
While testing the failover in SRX650 cluster. I have removed the control
link between the primary and secondary. The secondary node went to
ineligible mode. The secondry FW is still accessible through OoB
interface. When I returned back the control link I couldn't reach the FW
through OoB
Hi,
sarcasm
To whomever who decided to introduce new features in a R3 release, thanks
;-( Specifically installing jloader separately is highly appreciated.
/sarcasm
Kaj
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:54:25PM -0700, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
sarcasm
To whomever who decided to introduce new features in a R3 release, thanks
;-( Specifically installing jloader separately is highly appreciated.
/sarcasm
Sadly, they've been silently introducing new features in the
It took 838 seconds on a 2 member EX4200 VC bundle. Yes, I did time it. ;-)
Kaj
On 22/3/2011 22:46, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:54:25PM -0700, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
sarcasm
To whomever who decided to introduce new features in a R3 release,
On Wed, March 23, 2011 8:54 am, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Hi,
sarcasm
To whomever who decided to introduce new features in a R3 release, thanks
;-( Specifically installing jloader separately is highly appreciated.
/sarcasm
You'll probably be thanking them when your switch loses power* and when
you
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Kaj Niemi kaj...@a51.org wrote:
Hi,
sarcasm
To whomever who decided to introduce new features in a R3 release, thanks
;-( Specifically installing jloader separately is highly appreciated.
/sarcasm
sarcasm
more sarcasm
I think they've begun
flow-tools
On 2011-03-22, at 2:03 PM, Michael Lee wrote:
Hello:
I am trying to eval netflow collector for multi-vendor hardwares, anyone
could suggest any good commercial netflow collector running on Linux?
Thanks,
~mike
___
juniper-nsp
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Kaj Niemi kaj...@a51.org wrote:
It took 838 seconds on a 2 member EX4200 VC bundle. Yes, I did time it. ;-)
That does sound a bit painful, but not as painful as the file system
corruption this feature aims to fix.
I wonder what happened to the idea of
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:50 PM, bas kilo...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a bunch of mx480's running either 10.3r3 and 10.4r2
About 20 times a day the fans in these boxes switch from normal speed
to intermediate speed.
Sorry for hijacking your thread, but do you (or does anyone) know why
the
Yes the resilient dual root partition was implemented to deal with this issue
on the EX. I believe this is pretty similar to what the branch SRX do today.
Doug
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of TiM
Hi,
I have strange situation where my customer receives bpdu's on his
cisco switch from my ex4200 despite the fact that I have configured my
port as access (default in JUNOS)
and as edge on rstp configuration. Is this normal or I don't have luck
with 10.3 version?
Another feature of the dual root partition is that it will allow you to switch
between software versions using request system software rollback without
reinstalling the image. Don't forget in production to keep both the partitions
in sync with request system snapshot slice
You can check to
All the edge knob does is transition the port directly to the FWD state.
{master:0}[edit]
dhanks@EX4500-2# run show spanning-tree interface xe-0/0/38
Spanning tree interface parameters for instance 0
InterfacePort IDDesignated Designated PortState Role
This is perfectly normal spanning-tree behaviour - if edge ports didn't send
BPDUs and you looped a cable between two edge ports then broadcast storm
hilarity would ensue.
If you want to stop this from occurring (and have a good understanding of the
implications of doing this between two
I'm wondering if this is something that could be done with Junipers;
On our mountain top sites, we currently have dual 48 port POE switches, and
dual Dell 1950's running Quagga/Zebra routing suites..
The sites support wimax access points and redundant microwave backhauls to
other towers or our
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 03:46:36PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The process of upgrading to a resilient dual-root partitions release
takes longer due to the additional step of upgrading the loader software
and a longer reboot time while the disk is reformattedto four partitions
The EX4200-48P - supports virtual-chassis[1] - or the EX3200-48P can do this,
although is requires an advanced license for BGP (EX-48-AFL).
CoS is pretty much the same for all Junos devices. Take a look at the
technical documentation for the EX and CoS.
It seems like on the EX platform, I would need each customer in a separate
VLAN for this to work (All customers on one port are on the same VLAN, and
only split by subnets).. Also don't see how one goes about setting up a
MIR.. CIR seems straight forward..
Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk:
Maybe someone else can chime in, as I'm not an expert with MIR.
Junos policers use the token bucket algorithm and allow you to configure a
bandwidth-limit and burst-size-limit.
You can create firewall filters to match traffic and apply these filters as
coarse or as granular as you need.
Sounds like the interface did not put into group, and should use fxp0 ip instead
Regards
-mike
On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:05, Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru wrote:
While testing the failover in SRX650 cluster. I have removed the control
link between the primary and secondary. The secondary node
Hi Doug,
Thanks for responding..
I need to be able to do something like this;
Customer BW Pool of 20 Mbps up and down
Customer A, 5 Mbps committed information rate CIR, burstable to 15
Mbps as long as resources are available
Customer B, 5 Mbps committed information rate
I would have to look into it, but you should be able to set a max
bandwidth/transmit under cos then use filters + policers per customer.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Kranz [mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:49 PM
To: Doug Hanks; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
29 matches
Mail list logo
