On 11/28/12 10:56 PM, Sunil Mayenkar wrote:
Hello Gentlemen,
Problem faced: When a large broadcast generated by the downstream
network(1,00,000Pkts per sec) hits the Juniper gigE interface it causes the
node to behave erratically, not allowing remote login, LSPs flap, until the
port is shut d
> However, I cannot set ge-0/0/0.0 as the next-hop because it's not a point to
> point interface. I cannot set an IP address as the next-hop because I don't
> know when it will change.
>
> Any ideas on how to address that?
Missing functionality in JunOS. Complain to your SE. Other vendors can
Hello Gentlemen,
Problem faced: When a large broadcast generated by the downstream
network(1,00,000Pkts per sec) hits the Juniper gigE interface it causes the
node to behave erratically, not allowing remote login, LSPs flap, until the
port is shut down.
I understand that a default arp policer
> DRAM: Initializing - DDR: 2048 MB
> Testing DRAM from 0x to 0x8000
> DRAM test phase 1:
> DRAM test fails at: 7ff63e24
> hang at function = 0xfffbe504
> ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ###
>
>
> Any suggestions?
>
Yep - its broke. RMA? DOA?
I'd try to use install-media to get everything back to factory defaults. Have
you tried this yet?
With best regards,
Vitaly Vlasenko
On 29.11.2012, at 12:04, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> it says DRAM test fails, my guess is you need to replace memory.
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Ali Sumsam
> wrote:
it says DRAM test fails, my guess is you need to replace memory.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Ali Sumsam
wrote:
> Here are some more errors if it helps
>
>
> tunefs: soft updates remains unchanged as disabled
>
> Creating initial configuration...Interface control process:
> /usr/libexec/ld-el
Here are some more errors if it helps
tunefs: soft updates remains unchanged as disabled
Creating initial configuration...Interface control process:
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libcrypto.so.3" not found,
required by "cgatool"
umass0: at uhub0 port 3 (addr 2) disconnected
(da0:umas
Perfect - thanks Stacy
On 29/11/2012, at 12:00 PM, Stacy W. Smith wrote:
> Configure interface-routes at the [edit routing-instances CUSTOMER-A
> routing-options] hierarchy rather than the [edit routing-options] hierarchy.
> Continue to define rib-groups at the [edit routing-options] hierarch
Configure interface-routes at the [edit routing-instances CUSTOMER-A
routing-options] hierarchy rather than the [edit routing-options] hierarchy.
Continue to define rib-groups at the [edit routing-options] hierarchy.
[edit]
root@srx210# show routing-options
rib-groups {
FBF-PBR {
im
Hi,
My new MX5 died today. If I try to boot it up, it stuck at following
message.
U-Boot 1.1.6 (Jun 10 2011 - 00:50:30)
CPU: 8572, Version: 2.1, (0x80e00021)
Core0: E500, Version: 3.0, (0x80210030)
Clock Configuration:
CPU0:1333 MHz,CPU1:1333 MHz, CCB: 533 MHz,
DDR: 267
Hi All,
I have a requirement for performing Filter-based Forwarding on traffic that is
ingressing via a routing-instance (instance-type virtual-router):
show routing-options:
interface-routes {
rib-group inet FBF-PBR;
}
rib-groups {
FBF-PBR {
import-rib [ CUSTOMER-A.inet.0 FBF-
On (2012-11-28 15:08 -0700), Morgan McLean wrote:
> I run a few MX80's but doing very basic BGP with full tables, some minor
> OSPF, nothing major.
>
> Where exactly are you guys running into restrictions with regards to the RE?
Just generally slow to converge BGP, long commit times with occasio
I run a few MX80's but doing very basic BGP with full tables, some minor
OSPF, nothing major.
Where exactly are you guys running into restrictions with regards to the RE?
Thanks,
Morgan
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2012-11-28 22:30 +0100), sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>
On (2012-11-28 22:30 +0100), sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> Probably not. The MX80 has a significantly underpowered RE CPU. Bad
> enough that we have basically stopped buying MX80s, mostly for that
> reason alone.
I'm quite worried if we are able to use MX80 long time enough due to the
RE, so I can f
Hey all,
I haven't found an answer to this question (except for Cisco options which
doesn't help me). I want to configure a static route to a DHCP interface on an
SRX240. Here's the scenario:
ge-0/0/0 connected to CX111 (4G modem/DHCP)
t1-0/1/0 connected to an L3VPN (with BGP)
st0.0 should c
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:09 AM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> 11.4 actually, sorry!
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
>> Thx, i am mostly disappointed in their implementation of nat/ipsec
>> require flow processing, it's totally unnecessary! i hate session
>> tables too!
>>
>> Although i heard
> When I do a commit on an somewhat buxy MX80, I see
>
> Nov 27 21:14:10.443024 OSPF dropped 172 received packets due to flow blockage
>
> as long as I have set ospf traceoptions flag error. Without
> traceoptions, the error is not logged.
>
> Now, JTAC is telling me that I cannot run with any t
When I do a commit on an somewhat buxy MX80, I see
Nov 27 21:14:10.443024 OSPF dropped 172 received packets due to flow blockage
as long as I have set ospf traceoptions flag error. Without
traceoptions, the error is not logged.
Now, JTAC is telling me that I cannot run with any traceoptions on t
Our experience with performance-limited branch SRX systems lately has made us
use the 1/3-rule. If you don't use more than 1/3 of the rated max of any one
metric the box will perform well and have some headroom for fluctuations.
Going above that, our boxes fill the logs with warnings that the FP
I'm interested in possibly using junoscript to adjust policing based on a
utilization ceiling.
Example, let's say that I've got 2Gb/sec of bandwidth that I can use. At busy
times, it's appropriate to police users at 7Mb, but if I'm only using around
70% of that 2Gb, adjust policing up to someth
Hi Mike,
I must disagree here, although I never verified it myself a Juniper
Engineer I know did show me some in production configurations showing
MPLS over GRE over IPSec on a single branch router (I think J not SRX)
so it is possible. This was on 10.3R1.9. You must use the lt-0/0/0
interface t
On 28/11/12 11:24, Mike Williams wrote:
On Tuesday 27 November 2012 23:08:04 Michel de Nostredame wrote:
PS: I just got a SRX100 and am going to do some POC with
selective-packet-mode. Basically I want to route my traffic into GRE
tunnel in packet-mode and route GRE packet over IPsec to remote S
On Tuesday 27 November 2012 23:08:04 Michel de Nostredame wrote:
> PS: I just got a SRX100 and am going to do some POC with
> selective-packet-mode. Basically I want to route my traffic into GRE
> tunnel in packet-mode and route GRE packet over IPsec to remote SSG
> site in flow-mode because IPsec
As far as I know and according to all Juniper docs you can only use optical
pic ports and of course the dedicated vc port for this
eg.
https://www.juniper.net/techpubs//en_US/junos/topics/example/virtual-chassis-ex4200-link-aggregation-over-extended-vcps.html
Regards,
Darius
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012
On ex-4200-24T
is it possible to create a LAG using a 1 Gb up-link fiber port + a 1 Gb copper
port ?
Any juniper.net
reference about that ?
Tks
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
htt
11.4 actually, sorry!
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM, 叶雨飞 wrote:
> Thx, i am mostly disappointed in their implementation of nat/ipsec
> require flow processing, it's totally unnecessary! i hate session
> tables too!
>
> Although i heard horrible things about boot time on lower level srx
> dev
Thx, i am mostly disappointed in their implementation of nat/ipsec
require flow processing, it's totally unnecessary! i hate session
tables too!
Although i heard horrible things about boot time on lower level srx
devices, it claims to need 5 minutes to boot up. how is yours ?I'm
mostly interest
27 matches
Mail list logo
