Re: [j-nsp] bgp ipv6 route problem

In 10.4 the automatically created IPv4-compatible IPv6-address changed, that is the (:::12.1.1.1). Before 10.4 it used to be just (::12.1.1.1). If you have mixture in the network it will be confusing... BTW, the JNCIE exam is now using 10.4. i met some odd problem on junos 10.4 . two

Re: [j-nsp] bgp ipv6 route problem

Hello per， Thanks for ur response.R1 dont accept the route in 10.4. how do we do make it accept the route. Thanks -- Original -- From: Per Granathper.gran...@gcc.com.cy; Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 11:46 PM To: juniper-nspjuniper-nsp@puck.nether.net;

Re: [j-nsp] bgp ipv6 route problem

In principle, which ever router has 12.1.1.1 as inet address, also needs to have :::12.1.1.1 as a (secondary) inet6 address, and advertise this in IGP. Hello per， Thanks for ur response.R1 dont accept the route in 10.4. how do we do make it accept the route. Thanks --

Re: [j-nsp] bgp ipv6 route problem

Hello, I am running 10.4 and still next hop is in format ::x.y.z.v, this was not changed. With regards to your orig questions, there are 2x ways of doing it, for example make eBGP peering using p2p IPv4 addresses were Ipv4 and compaIPv4/Ipv6 address is defined. In this case U just need define

[j-nsp] MX MPC Buffer size

Hello, I found in documentation that MX MPC Buffer size is 100ms of the port speed. Is the buffer size the same for MPC1, MPC1Q, MPC2, MPC2Q and MPC2EQ? How is this buffer size shared in case you have different sub interfaces or VLAN assigned to a port? We want to shape the traffic

[j-nsp] Supported REs for M7i

All, We have a pair of M7i which in a previous life served as our border routers. Since we moved to 10gig, they've served primarily as PIM RPs since they have the tunnel services PIC. We're taking the opportunity to re-architect our network, and I want to use them as route-reflectors. They

Re: [j-nsp] MX MPC Buffer size

On (2012-03-16 14:20 -0300), Gomes, Joao (NSN - US/Mountain View) wrote: I found in documentation that MX MPC Buffer size is 100ms of the port speed. Is the buffer size the same for MPC1, MPC1Q, MPC2, MPC2Q and MPC2EQ? No. The buffer size is never temporally limited, or at least I've not

Re: [j-nsp] em0/em1 intreface

On (2012-03-16 12:05 -0700), Doug Hanks wrote: Depends on the platform, hardware, and routing engine. At least on the MX the current RE uses em0 and em1. This gives the impression in conjunction with OP that there is agreement that fxp has been replaced by em. I'm not sure if that

Re: [j-nsp] em0/em1 intreface

On (2012-03-16 22:21 +0200), Saku Ytti wrote: Reread the OP and seems the implication of fxp-em was not ever made. Just fxp[12] - em[01]. So confusion was just mine. And indeed new REs uses 1GE/em[01] for internal signalling instead of 100M/fxp[12] (but all still use 100M/fxp0 for management)

Re: [j-nsp] em0/em1 intreface

fxp vs. em is just FreeBSD nomenclature for the type of device driver used by the kernel to drive the hardware device. There is no other semantic meaning tied to fxp vs. em than that. Some hardware uses the fxp driver, some uses the em driver. From FreeBSD manual pages: fxp -- Intel

Re: [j-nsp] bgp ipv6 route problem

Somehow I thought we re talking here about eBGP session... But it looks U re trying configure inet6 labeled-unicast between these 2x peers if U re getting :::ipv4 as a next hop for ipv6 routes. Is this your intention? Trying to configure 6PE? If just regular ipv6 bgp on ipv4 session, thei

[j-nsp] Mail System Error - Returned Mail

Dear user of puck.nether.net, We have detected that your e-mail account has been used to send a huge amount of junk e-mail messages during this week. Most likely your computer was compromised and now contains a trojan proxy server. Please follow instruction in order to keep your computer safe.