On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Md. Jahangir Hossain
jrjahan...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear valued member:
Wishes all are fine.
i need
suggestion from you about Juniper MX10 router performance who already
implement this. i want to
buy this router for IP Transit provider where i received
Thanks jonathan to reach you again.
Actually i need to confirmation how many BGP routes this model can handle.
In some of forum i found 1.6million but in juniper site i can not found this
information.
So i am a little bit confused that way i need to know the practical
information if any
hi,
why lacp passive?
Da: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net per conto di ext bruno.juniper
Inviato: dom 22/04/2012 9.11
A: juniper-nsp
Oggetto: [j-nsp] vpls multihome link agg test
hi experts,
i am using srx test link aggregation to prevent loops as
Hi,
Can you try removing LACP passive option and see if that works ? Is it
possible to see a monitor traffic on the ae interface ?
--
Any Fool can Know The Point is to Understand - Einstein
www.cciematrix.com
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
On (2012-04-22 23:52 -0700), Md. Jahangir Hossain wrote:
In some of forum i found 1.6million but in juniper site i can not found this
information.
This is certainly possible and will scale further, depending of course what
other things are populated in RLDRAM. Giving exact answer might prove
The 1.6 million sounds around right but have nothing to confirm it. The
largest table we have running on an M10i looks like this:
Table Tot Paths Act Paths SuppressedHistory Damp State
Pending
inet.0549751 410074 0 0 0
0
bgp.l3vpn.0
coz on cisco side ,i use active . maybe the srx don't support vpls link agg .
The VPLS implementation on a J Series or SRX Series device is similar to VPLS
implementations on M Series, T Series, and MX Series routers, with the
following exceptions:
J Series or SRX Series devices do
Hi,
yes it is configured
Messaggio originale
Da:
dha...@juniper.net
Data: 04/04/2012 17.40
A: nunzia...@tiscali.it
nunzia...@tiscali.it, juniper-nsp@puck.nether.netjuniper-nsp@puck.
nether.net
Ogg: Re: [j-nsp] mc-ae problem
Did you set your [switch-
options service-id] to something
Thanks for all the input. I'm beginning to get an understanding here.
So, the vlan sub-int on the MX could be a MEP. The port on the
switch where the customer connects can't be a MEP. We'll have to
assume that I have no administrative control whatsoever over the
customer router. I can't even
Sorry - I thought it was M10i you were talking about...
On the MX80 side this it the largest we have at the moment is around 650k
BGP routes.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent:
Thanks to all for putting your valued information.
From: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org
To: 'Md. Jahangir Hossain' jrjahan...@yahoo.com; 'Jonathan Lassoff'
j...@thejof.com
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:30 PM
Subject: RE:
The MX5 scaling is identical to the MX80. The only difference is that the
MX5 restricts the physical port usage to MIC0.
3,000,000 IPv4 prefixes in the RIB.
1,000,000 IPv4 unicast in the FIB.
Thank you,
--
Doug Hanks - JNCIE-ENT #213, JNCIE-SP #875
Sr. Systems Engineer
Juniper Networks
On
From an MX80
inet.0: 400906 destinations, 799589 routes (400906 active, 0 holddown, 0
hidden)
Direct: 7 routes, 7 active
Local: 6 routes, 6 active
OSPF:105 routes,104 active
BGP: 799470 routes, 400788 active
Looking for study folks; My exam is in 2 moths.skype: brunojuniper
--
Best Regards,
Bruno
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
14 matches
Mail list logo
