hello stefan,
i have check ur doc yestersday.there are two question:
1.how to check mx box have tunnel service card.
2. is it 10 is special for tunnel in lt-0/0/10 . can we use 8 9 or 7 ?
logical-systems {
dc {
interfaces {
lt-0/0/10 {
Hello All -
We have a client with a lot of J-Series routers running 9.3 code or earlier.
We really like the features and functionality of JUNOS as a router and are more
than a little annoyed that Juniper seems to be forcing us to turn these routers
into firewalls.
What are others doing to
I made a following setup:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9311/switchvsroutertraffic.png
Setup with Juniper router uses Juniper router and Setup with Cisco
router uses Cisco router. Both computers sent data(Iperf sends 1470
byte datagrams) for 300 seconds at 9Mbps. As you can see, in case of
i have check ur doc yestersday.there are two question:
1.how to check mx box have tunnel service card.
It probably doesn't - however, if you have a DPC or MPC you can
configure the necessary tunnel PIC. E.g. assuming a 20 port GigE
DPC in slot 0,
chassis {
fpc 0 {
pic 0 {
I got clarification from JTAC on this one:
The 131,072 would be if you were using source NAT without translating the port.
Otherwise source NAT would be for 1024 pools * ~65,000 ports per pool.
Static translations - more than 6000 supported. I totally read this wrong - I
hope this helps
Ben,
Nobody is forcing the jseries to become firewalls. They did alter the
default behavior of the packet handling to be flow mode..but you can
configure that.
To enable packet mode junos. Just issue the following commands.
delete security
set security forwarding-options family mpls mode
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:18 AM, R. Benjamin Kessler
ben.kess...@zenetra.com wrote:
Hello All -
We have a client with a lot of J-Series routers running 9.3 code or earlier.
We really like the features and functionality of JUNOS as a router and are
more than a little annoyed that Juniper
Has anyone else seen this issue?
'Juniper BGP issues causing locallized Internet Problems, (Mon, Nov 7th)
http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=11965rss
via SANS Internet Storm Center, InfoCON: green http://isc.sans.edu on
11/7/11
We're starting to get reports (thanks to both
On 11/07/2011 02:18 PM, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote:
Hello All -
We have a client with a lot of J-Series routers running 9.3 code or
earlier. We really like the features and functionality of JUNOS as a
router and are more than a little annoyed that Juniper seems to be
forcing us to turn these
Hey,
I'd say get a bigger CF and install some 10.4 version and follow this;
http://juniper.cluepon.net/index.php/Enabling_packet_based_forwarding
Disables all that flow stuff you really don't want on a router.
--
Timh Bergström
System Operations
Videoplaza
timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com
+46 727
That would be cool if it didn't also break IPSec VPNs...bummer
-Original Message-
From: Timh Bergström [mailto:timh.bergst...@videoplaza.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 4:28 PM
To: R. Benjamin Kessler
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] J-Series Router Options
Hey,
On 07/11/11 06:18, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote:
Hello All -
We have a client with a lot of J-Series routers running 9.3 code or earlier.
We really like the features and functionality of JUNOS as a router and are
more than a little annoyed that Juniper seems to be forcing us to turn these
More importantly, if it was the issue dated in August, how in the heck
do I get on a list which tells me such a critical bug exists?
Jack
On 11/7/2011 2:03 PM, Krembs, Jesse wrote:
Has anyone else seen this issue?
'Juniper BGP issues causing locallized Internet Problems, (Mon, Nov
On 7 November 2011 14:10, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
What are others doing to deal with the flow issues associated with
more recent versions of code?
We simply upgraded the RAM and forced packet mode.
Interestingly, we're toying with the idea of using the little SRX2xx series
Juniper doesn't believe security bugs should be public. You must be a customer
with support to access their portal.
Cisco has a good policy. You can view any security bugs and get fixes
regardless of your contract status.
Jared Mauch
On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates
To be fair, you find a Cisco product in the same price range with the same
features that can come even close to that throughput!
K.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:00, David Ball davidtb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2011 14:10, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
What are others doing
Once upon a time, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net said:
More importantly, if it was the issue dated in August, how in the heck
do I get on a list which tells me such a critical bug exists?
If you have a Juniper support account, go to www.juniper.net/alerts,
scroll to the bottom, and click on
On 11/7/2011 8:28 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jack Batesjba...@brightok.net said:
More importantly, if it was the issue dated in August, how in the heck
do I get on a list which tells me such a critical bug exists?
If you have a Juniper support account, go to
On 7 November 2011 21:46, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Thanks. So I'm guessing anyone effected by it, shouldn't have been (given
I'd think large networks would have been notified and have valid support
contracts).
Right, because upon the release of any new PSNs, immediate
Well...basically yes. The issue (PSN-2011-08-327) is known since august.
I guess the fact that juniper has listed the issue as the
probability of exploiting this defect is extremely low has led many
networks to not implent a immediate fix for this on a security
perspective.
As you know
20 matches
Mail list logo
