> Maybe logical tunnel into a bridge? Eg
> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/2011-August/020891.html
^
Yup. I'm using this method right now to backhaul a VLAN off of an CPE
generating a Martini L2CKT endpoint, stitched into an MX480 bridge-group.
Works well.
Caveat: You lose Co
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saba Sumsam
> I am receiving VLAN550 on MX80 (PE) via an LSP
> I would like to create an L3 Interface on the MX for this
> VLAN.
Maybe logical tunnel into a bridg
On 23/05/12 08:32, MKS wrote:
> Hi
>
> Imagine a town of 15.000-20.000 people. What type of device/devices
> and size would you put into this town, given the following
> requirements
>
> Residential triple play (HSI, VoD, Multicast)
>8 IP dslams (GigE)
>Vod servers (4 GigE pors)
>
> Busi
In SLAX 1.1 you'd be able to use mvars, but that isn't released in Junos yet,
so you'll need to use some sort of out-of-script storage such as the Utility
MIB or a disk file.
BTW, this could cause your unit numbers to jump around between commits. (If you
remove one VPN then every following VPN
Hi
Imagine a town of 15.000-20.000 people. What type of device/devices
and size would you put into this town, given the following
requirements
Residential triple play (HSI, VoD, Multicast)
8 IP dslams (GigE)
Vod servers (4 GigE pors)
Business connections (L3VPN)
10 Business connections
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Cyn D. wrote:
> Thanks for the input. Given our network topology, I am trying to avoid
> running a full IBGP mesh.
If router C just needs internet transit, perhaps consider just
injecting a default route into your IGP?
It sounds like in this example, that most o
On Tue May 22 22:46:44 2012, Cyn D. wrote:
> Thanks for the input. Given our network topology, I am trying to avoid
> running a full IBGP mesh.
Anything stopping you from making B a BGP route reflector?
> Also forgot to mention, OSPF Area 5 is a NSSA so that I will have
> control over what is bei
Thanks for the input. Given our network topology, I am trying to avoid
running a full IBGP mesh.
Also forgot to mention, OSPF Area 5 is a NSSA so that I will have control
over what is being advertised.
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Lassoff"
To: "Cyn D."
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, Ma
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Cyn D. wrote:
> Network connections:
>
> We have router A(M120, 10.4), B(MX240, 11.4) and C(M7i, 10.4) connected as a
> triangle. Router A and B are in OSPF area 0 and also run IBGP between them.
> Router C is connected to A and B via OSPF area 5.
>
> Problem:
>
Network connections:
We have router A(M120, 10.4), B(MX240, 11.4) and C(M7i, 10.4) connected as a
triangle. Router A and B are in OSPF area 0 and also run IBGP between them.
Router C is connected to A and B via OSPF area 5.
Problem:
Router A has a lot of EBGP learned routes. These routes are
Juniper has a bug in their LT interface implementation on MX80 in 11.4,
that misses to decrement ttl on logical tunnel interfaces. That's why
you don't see R2 in the traceroute. They haven't released in which
version they are going to fix it yet.
Kindly
Magnus
On 2012-05-22 14:32, Mihai Gabriel
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 03:00:32 PM JA wrote:
> Can anyone please confirm if below connectivity would
> work with 10ge wan phy router port at one side while
> other end router with stm-64 port?
>
> rtr[10ge.wan.phy] --- sdh[stm64] --- dwdm.ring ---
> sdh[stm64] --- rtr[stm64]
Layer 2 protocols
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:23:47 PM Paul Stewart wrote:
> That's what works best for us anyways..
Looks Junos 11.4 is the one to invest "pain & suffering" in,
since it will be the longest-serving - until 2015:
http://www.juniper.net/support/eol/junos.html
Mark.
___
Using a physical loop with vlans solved the problem according with your
suggestion.
Thank you all for help!
Regards
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Magnus Bergroth wrote:
> Juniper has a bug in their LT interface implementation on MX80 in 11.4,
> that misses to decrement ttl on logical tunnel
On 22/05/12 23:00, JA wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone please confirm if below connectivity would work with 10ge wan
> phy router port at one side while other end router with stm-64 port?
No this won't work.
> rtr[10ge.wan.phy] --- sdh[stm64] --- dwdm.ring --- sdh[stm64] --- rtr[stm64]
WAN-PHY doesn'
Hi,
I'm trying to write a template for a commit script that, when called,
will find the first unused unit on an interface and add some transient
config to it. "Unused" means that that the unit isn't defined in the
main configuration file and that an earlier call to the template hasn't
written tran
I would caution against using logical tunnel interfaces between
different logical systems.
Get two SFPs and a short piece of fibre and use a physical loopback. We
have experienced issues with lt interfaces between LRs when using MPLS
and JTAC have told us not to do it as well.
-Original Messa
Hi
Can anyone please confirm if below connectivity would work with 10ge wan
phy router port at one side while other end router with stm-64 port?
rtr[10ge.wan.phy] --- sdh[stm64] --- dwdm.ring --- sdh[stm64] --- rtr[stm64]
-JA
___
juniper-nsp mailing li
shold be
php.
Da: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net per conto di ext Mihai Gabriel
Inviato: mar 22/05/2012 14.32
A: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Oggetto: [j-nsp] MX5-T logical-routers question
Hello,
I am trying to test some features with an MX5-T router
Hello,
I am trying to test some features with an MX5-T router with
logical-systems but my results are below expectations and I don't
understand what's wrong.
The topology and the config are very simple: R1 --- R2 ---R3 :
mx5t# run show version
Hostname: mx5t
Model: mx5-t
JUNOS Base OS boot [11
Usually the best way to find that info is via our Juniper SE if you have one
- they can contact the right folks internally to get that answered...
That's what works best for us anyways..
Paul
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.n
I'm aware of that and it's already been configured before the start of the
thread.
Thanks,
Ihsan
On 22 May 2012, at 17:03, Per Granath wrote:
> Something about "prefix length size 2" on cisco...
>
> http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/Cisco-and-Juniper-VPLS-Integration-using-BGP/td-p/42308/p
When using ccc you cannot add also a L3 interface.
With vpls instead, it may work.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Does the M120 RR have reachability to the clients in its inet.3 table?
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Something about "prefix length size 2" on cisco...
http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/Cisco-and-Juniper-VPLS-Integration-using-BGP/td-p/42308/page/2
Assuming they use the same FEC now.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https:/
Yes it does.
ihsan@rr-01-csfcb-re0> show route table inet.3 223.28.0.15
inet.3: 618 destinations, 618 routes (618 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
Restart Complete
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
223.28.0.15/32 *[IS-IS/18] 2d 14:42:16, metric 20220
> to 223.28.5
Hm,
Your e-mail is all chopped up, we use IRB's like this;
* interface:
xe-0/0/1 {
description "Downlink: edge01-xe-0/0/1 -> core01-xe-0/0/39";
vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
unit 500 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 500;
}
}
* bri
Hi folks,
Anyone can help if I'm missing anything?
I have a BGP session setup between two ME3600X (IOS 15.2) PEs with JUNOS
10.4R4.5 M120 RR exchanging L2VPN VPLS auto-discovery AFI.
The session is well established and prefixes are received however the peers are
unable to locate each other hen
Hello,
I am receiving VLAN550 on MX80 (PE) via an LSP. The configuration of the
CE-facing interface is as follows:
*ae1 {
flexible-vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
unit 550 {
encapsulation vlan-ccc;
vlan-id-range 550;
family
29 matches
Mail list logo
