Hello,
we're using IPv6 uRPF filter on a MX960 (IRB interface) and I noticed
that it drops VRRPv3 packets (source fe80::/64, destination ff02::12).
Is this expected behaviour? It makes sense to me to drop link-local
packets but shouldn't packets that go the RE be excluded from that?
It's easily
Works just fine on any MPC line card.
On 7/18/12 7:53 PM, Giuliano Medalha giuli...@wztech.com.br wrote:
People,
Does anyone on list has some experience in running multichassis LAG using
the following interface ?
MPC-3D-16XGE-SFPP
This interface has some limitations like LAN-PHY only.
Is it
Hey Guys,
Got a weird scenario which has be baffled,
I have MX5 with several irbs. These irbs are protected with filters to
permit only specific IPs through to manage the servers within. for the
most part the filters are doing it's job, but there is a behaviour
where when the filters are put in
I have a script that I've developed which when given a list of hosts will
poll via snmp and gather:
Interface details
BGP peers
OSPF neighbors
Hardware information
It then has some default behavior and intelligently builds a working nagios
configuration for the devices, all by itself. There are
Hi Morgan,
It's possible that many will be interested. Go for it! Put it on a blog and
see what happens.
Good luck,
Dana
On Jul 20, 2012 7:39 PM, Morgan McLean wrx...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a script that I've developed which when given a list of hosts will
poll via snmp and gather:
Interface
Perhaps a reverse dns lookup that fails, thereby delaying prompt? Maybe add a
dns term to see if that helps. The DNS query likely goes off subnet.
HTHs
Regards
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
We've been troubleshooting a strange problem for a few days. JTAC is
on the case, too, but we have not found any resolution. I thought
maybe picking some minds here would be helpful. Here is a simplified
diagram:
[Device A] --- [Router A] --- [Router B] --- [Router C]
- [Device
We have packet captures going at the endpoints, but not in between,
unfortunately. It would be nice if we had a sniffer at that location
so we could mirror the ports and get some data there.
The inbound filter on Router C looks like this:
term netmgmt {
then {
count fec-cs2;
Does show interfaces blah extensive on the interface between Router A and
Device A show any drops? IIRC, the default scheduler map does not define
schedulers for anything other than be and nc - so if you're classifying the
packets on input then it could be that they're going to a class that has
Someone else off-list just mentioned something similar. We're checking
into that now.
Thanks!
John
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Wayne Tucker wa...@tuckerlabs.com wrote:
Does show interfaces blah extensive on the interface between Router A and
Device A show any drops? IIRC, the default
Have you captured traffic before and after to validate the marking?
Relavent config bits would help.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 3:56 PM, John Neiberger wrote:
We've been troubleshooting a strange problem for a few days. JTAC is
on the case, too, but we have not found any resolution. I thought
maybe
Good day,
I am recently working on an replacement of aged M10i; we are using
M10i to terminate multiple 100mbps/1gbps Metro-Ethernet from branch
buildings (FEs are aggregated on EX4200 and Layer2 uplink to M10i by
GE), hence MX80 become reasonable replacement as it has higher port
density,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Wayne Tucker wa...@tuckerlabs.com wrote:
Does show interfaces blah extensive on the interface between Router A and
Device A show any drops? IIRC, the default scheduler map does not define
schedulers for anything other than be and nc - so if you're classifying
13 matches
Mail list logo
