Re: [j-nsp] Dynamic Profiles Question

2012-10-08 Thread Graham Brown
Hi Caillin, I've not played with the MX for subscriber management specifically; however Juniper released a PSN on Thursday detailing a special version of code targeted specifically for these services. PSN-2012-10-730 - 11.4X27 Release for MX Subscriber Management All of the release notes and

[j-nsp] CPU monitoring of cluster of two J6350

2012-10-08 Thread Alexander Shikoff
Hello! I need to monitor CPU load of every node in a cluster of two J6350 routers via SNMP. I found KB12142 article which tells that Work is ongoing to support these MIBs on J-Series and SRX Branch in a future release. Currently my cluster is running JunOS 10.2R3.10. Does anybody know is there

Re: [j-nsp] JUNIPER POLICER and CoS Shaping Rate

2012-10-08 Thread Tima Maryin
On 04.10.2012 14:30, Duane Grant wrote: network-services all-ethernet; Btw, it's unsupported thing. There are ways to do it per IFL, but I don't have an example handy. Last time i checked build-in ports of MX=80 did not support per unit scheduling.

Re: [j-nsp] JUNIPER POLICER and CoS Shaping Rate

2012-10-08 Thread Christopher E. Brown
On 10/8/12 4:02 AM, Tima Maryin wrote: On 04.10.2012 14:30, Duane Grant wrote: network-services all-ethernet; Btw, it's unsupported thing. There are ways to do it per IFL, but I don't have an example handy. Last time i checked build-in ports of MX=80 did not support per unit

Re: [j-nsp] Odd drop behavior on low-rate multicast streams

2012-10-08 Thread John Neiberger
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM, John Neiberger jneiber...@gmail.com wrote: We have a simple setup like this: [receiver] [ Cisco-rtr-A] [ Cisco rtr-B] - [MX960] - [Cisco rtr-C] [source] The receiver has joined a specific S,G, but this is very low rate, perhaps just a

Re: [j-nsp] Odd drop behavior on low-rate multicast streams

2012-10-08 Thread Nilesh Khambal
Hi John, Is it the first packet that gets lost from the stream or the subsequent ones? If the route does not exist on MX for your (S,G) in the forwarding-table, then when you receive the packet for this (S,G) on MX, it will be punted to the routing-enginer (control-plane) for what is known as

Re: [j-nsp] Odd drop behavior on low-rate multicast streams

2012-10-08 Thread John Neiberger
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Nilesh Khambal nkham...@juniper.net wrote: Hi John, Is it the first packet that gets lost from the stream or the subsequent ones? If the route does not exist on MX for your (S,G) in the forwarding-table, then when you receive the packet for this (S,G) on MX,

Re: [j-nsp] Odd drop behavior on low-rate multicast streams

2012-10-08 Thread Nilesh Khambal
Sure. Make sure you implement this workaround across all Juniper boxes that are in path for this multicast group traffic. - Nilesh. From: John Neiberger jneiber...@gmail.commailto:jneiber...@gmail.com Date: Monday, October 8, 2012 2:40 PM To: Nilesh Khambal