-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There will never be an EX2500 in that document. This is a junos
document, and the ex2500 doesn't run junos.
Tom
Am 04.05.2012 06:18, schrieb Skeeve Stevens:
Hey,
Does anyone know who we hassle to get a document updated?
Specifically:
Skeeve,
This document shows when features became available in a version of Junos.
The EX2500 does not run Junos; hence it's omission from the document. If
you need a 10Gb switch, look at the EX4500 (or the SFX3500 if you need a
1RU footprint).
HTH
--
Graham Brown
Twitter - @mountainrescuer
Hi Skeeve,
On May 4, 2012 2:24 PM, Skeeve Stevens skeeve+juniper...@eintellego.net
wrote:
Does anyone know who we hassle to get a document updated?
Specifically:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/ex-series-software-features-overview.html
With
Apologies, I meant the QFX3500.
Graham
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Graham Brown
juniper-...@grahambrown.infowrote:
Skeeve,
This document shows when features became available in a version of Junos.
The EX2500 does not run Junos; hence it's omission from the document. If
you need a 10Gb
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Skeeve Stevens
skeeve+juniper...@eintellego.net wrote:
Does anyone know who we hassle to get a document updated?
Specifically:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/topics/concept/ex-series-software-features-overview.html
Use the
off
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Just looking for clarification on the policer use. If I have a whole subnet
of ips in say a 10 megabit policer is each ip int eh subnet limited to 10
meg or is the whole subnet limited as a total of all the ips bandwidth?
Mark Jones
Operations
Managed Network Systems
London Desk 519-679-5207
This depends on how you apply the policer. If you apply a firewall filter
at the logical-unit level with a match clause that lists specific IPs, or
subsets of the prefix to which you refer, then the policer you call in that
firewall filter will only apply to those IPs listed in your match
Some of the Juniper document maintainers peruse this list regularly. I
once complained here about a VPLS document not quite being right, and I was
emailed within days by someone who could facilitate such a change. They
even solicited my feedback on how the wording should be structured.
David
Policers are pretty flexible. It really has to do with how you apply them
to the IFD and IFL. There are options in the firewall filters and
policers to aggregate or deaggregate traffic.
If you want to police traffic per IP, there's something called a
prefix-action that will let you define
Hi,
My SRX240 box started showing the following error in the logs:
May 5 00:36:08 srx240-lab srx240-lab Frame 00: sp = 0x49202a58, pc =
0x08020254
May 5 00:36:08 srx240-lab srx240-lab Frame 01: sp = 0x49202b00, pc =
0x0800c1fc
May 5 00:36:08 srx240-lab srx240-lab Frame 02: sp =
I have observed this on both an srx240 and srx210h. Jtac advised turning
off utm and idp (on 210), yet those were enabled before with no issues. The
240 was fresh out of the box getting initial config (IP, Nat, zones,
policies, I.e. nothing amazing).
I'll be waiting to see the answers too!
On May
If I recall correctly, I looked into this previously and found that
this was due to idp being enabled (which it is by default) but not
being used by policy. I want to say the fix to stop these
non-impacting albeit annoying log messages is to just disable IDP all
together.
Hope that helps,
-Tim
13 matches
Mail list logo
