Re: [j-nsp] SCB-E

2012-02-07 Thread Daniel Roesen
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 01:23:11AM +, OBrien, Will wrote: > Anyone running the SCB-E? I've got a stack of them with a set of fresh > MX480s ready to roll out. I'm curious what code your running. Given that there is only one public JUNOS release which supports SCB-E, there aren't many options:

[j-nsp] SCB-E

2012-02-07 Thread OBrien, Will
Anyone running the SCB-E? I've got a stack of them with a set of fresh MX480s ready to roll out. I'm curious what code your running. These will be paired with MPC blades… ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.ne

[j-nsp] 2011 Worldwide Infrastructure Report available for download.

2012-02-07 Thread Dobbins, Roland
[Apologies if you've already seen this announcement in other forums.] We've just posted the 2011 Worldwide Infrastructure Security Report for download at this URL: This year's WWISR contains responses and data from 114 network operators in all major geogr

Re: [j-nsp] proxy arp C vs J

2012-02-07 Thread Gordon Smith
Proxy ARP can be useful while sorting out a broken (misconfigured) network, but can also cause you a lot of grief. If the network is configured correctly, it's just a hindrance. Most definitely turn it off, then fix any routing issues it was masking. I see someone mentioned turning off gratuitous

Re: [j-nsp] Junos-RSVP-TE_nested_paths_RFC4206

2012-02-07 Thread Victor Lyapunov
Hello Forgot to post the config (was using a very simple setup). The setup CORE1,2,3 are juniper routers while PE1 & PE2 are cisco. Topology: (PE1) <=10.0.14.0/24=> (CORE1) <=10.0.12.0/24=>(CORE2)<=10.0.23.0/24=>(CORE3)<=10.0.35.0/24=>(PE2) Two MPLS-TE paths are established: Between (CORE1,COR

Re: [j-nsp] proxy arp C vs J

2012-02-07 Thread Jonathan Lassoff
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Alex Arseniev wrote: > Did you check what MACs are used in 1st, 2nd and 3rd time? Specifically MAC > OUIs. > I suspect this is a side effect of having C-J in the same broadcast domain. > Basically, when J-interface ARPs for a connected host, _AND_ if C has a > speci

Re: [j-nsp] proxy arp C vs J

2012-02-07 Thread Alex Arseniev
Did you check what MACs are used in 1st, 2nd and 3rd time? Specifically MAC OUIs. I suspect this is a side effect of having C-J in the same broadcast domain. Basically, when J-interface ARPs for a connected host, _AND_ if C has a specific route to that host/32, the C will answer with own MAC. I

Re: [j-nsp] proxy arp C vs J

2012-02-07 Thread Mark Tinka
On Tuesday, February 07, 2012 03:57:55 AM biwa net wrote: > Forgot to add we are running MX80 on Junos 11.2 Can you send a sample topology and your interface configurations for the Cisco and Juniper routers? Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___

[j-nsp] RA Guard Support on EX Series Switch

2012-02-07 Thread Christopher Werny
Dear List, we are currently evaluating different switch vendors for our network. I am mainly interested in IPv6 "Security Features" like DHCPv6 Snooping, RA Guard etc. According to this Whitepaper from Juniper: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/whitepapers/2000418-en.pdf RA Guard, DHCPv6