Thanks for the hint Tim.
The workaround is not to practical in my case - hope this
gets fixed soon.
Regards
flip
On 26.06.2012 16:05, Tim Eberhard wrote:
A quick search on that error message says it's a return routing issue.
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21363&cat=J
> I would avoid DHCP relay like plaque, unless you absolutely positively need
> it. It is implemented in very silly way, if it is configured all DHCP, even
> transit, is punted in every interface.
Yep, this is a horrible misfeature IMHO.
> Unfortunately some features require it, like unnumbered s
hey,
Does anyone know why Juniper developed a different, incompatible syntax
logic for "extended" DHCP? Why didn't they just expand the logic under
"helpers bootp"?
dhcp-relay is totally different implementation mainly used to support
subscriber management. It's (somewhat) stateful, inspects
On (2012-06-26 16:29 -0400), Clarke Morledge wrote:
> Warning: 'dhcp-relay' statement cannot be included along with
> 'forwarding-options helpers bootp' statement
>
> This appears to be the case even if the statements are used in
> different routing-instances.
Helpers aren't supported in RIs, on
I am trying to get my story straight on this, as there is some confusion
regarding multiple ways of configuring an MX to be a DHCP relay.
The older way of being a DHCP relay is to use the "forwarding-options
helpers bootp"" syntax. The newer way is to use the "forwarding-options
dhcp-relay"
On 06/26/12 11:22, Felix Schueren wrote:
One possible workaround in this scenario might be (obviously depends on
IGP complexity etc):
Run OSPF temporarily, carry v6 routes in there, then you can reconfigure
IS-IS as you see fit. Once you're done, disable OSPF again.
Yep, that's my current thou
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Nick Kritsky wrote:
> To all:
> sorry for misinformation. It looks like change in root authentication
> behavior was caused not by JunOS upgrade, but by change from
> "system authentication-order [ tacplus password ]"
> to
> "system authentication-order tacplus"
>
One possible workaround in this scenario might be (obviously depends on
IGP complexity etc):
Run OSPF temporarily, carry v6 routes in there, then you can reconfigure
IS-IS as you see fit. Once you're done, disable OSPF again.
Regards,
Felix
On 26.06.12 15:18, Jared Gull wrote:
> After digging i
To all:
sorry for misinformation. It looks like change in root authentication
behavior was caused not by JunOS upgrade, but by change from
"system authentication-order [ tacplus password ]"
to
"system authentication-order tacplus"
I have to be more careful.
Still, I can't understand the logic behi
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Wayne Tucker wrote:
>
> Are you using a RADIUS server? What setting are you using for
> system/authentication-order, if any?
>
I am using TAC+. settings are:
system authentication-order tacplus
"root" user is local. There is no user "root" in TAC+ database
A quick search on that error message says it's a return routing issue.
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21363&cat=JUNOS&actp=LIST
-Tim Eberhard
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:03 AM, f...@flipstar.net wrote:
> Hey everybody,
>
> I wonder if anybody is successfully using "forw
Hey everybody,
I wonder if anybody is successfully using "forwarding-options helpers domain"
(DNS) [1] on branch SRX?
In my setup the client queries the srx which forwards the request to the dns
server.
The dns sends a reply that never passes the srx back to the client.
Client
After digging into this a bit more, I believe Jeff is right w/r/t Junos OS not
supporting the transition feature.
From: Jeff Aitken
To: Michael Sinatra
Cc: Jared Gull ; "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [j-ns
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Nick Kritsky wrote:
> FYI: It looks like in version 11 Juniper has changed default settings
> for "system services ssh root-login".
> Now if you want to login as root via ssh, you have to explicitly allow
> it. in 10.X it was allowed by default.
> Tested on EX-4200
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:48:20PM -0700, Michael Sinatra wrote:
> That's the JunOS equivalent of 'multi-topology'. It is NOT the
> equivalent of 'multi-topology transition'.
My understanding is that neither IOS-XR nor JUNOS support the equivalent
of the "transition" mode, unfortunately. I wo
On 26/06/12 22:09, Nick Kritsky wrote:
> FYI: It looks like in version 11 Juniper has changed default settings
> for "system services ssh root-login".
> Now if you want to login as root via ssh, you have to explicitly allow
> it. in 10.X it was allowed by default.
> Tested on EX-4200, SRX-100.
>
>
FYI: It looks like in version 11 Juniper has changed default settings
for "system services ssh root-login".
Now if you want to login as root via ssh, you have to explicitly allow
it. in 10.X it was allowed by default.
Tested on EX-4200, SRX-100.
Funny thing is that documentation is still claiming
25.06.2012 16:06, Scott T. Cameron:
>
> 1. First, sorry for writing this once again, but it's just not the
> case.
> Any more or less smart stateful device, whether SRX or anything else,
> must not create session states for packets falling under a discard
> route. And SRX does
Hi folks,
Is anyone able to install multiple destinations into their inet6-backup-router
stanza?
No matter what i do, I can't seem to install more than one destinations into
the backup router.
It's an SRX240H running 11.4S3.
ihsan@acs01-kul-node0# set system inet6-backup-router 2400:3700:20:1
19 matches
Mail list logo
