Mates
any other experience in regards on the initial question ?
Tks
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:00:59 +0100
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] LAG on Ex4200 fiber + copper
From: dariu...@gmail.com
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
As far as I know and according to all Juniper docs you
* Aaron Dewell
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)
- Original Message -
From: sth...@nethelp.no
I can understand the choice of not including this functionality. Juniper
can avoid the well known of problem of pointing a default route at an
Ethernet interface, leading to an ARP for every new/unknown destination.
There is a recent post
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Aaron Dewell aaron.dew...@gmail.comwrote:
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
Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi writes:
RSP720 is lower spec pq3 than MX80 yet it runs circles around MX80 in terms
of convergence and scale. In fact when I heard about MX80, I wasn't worried
about RE performance at all, top-of-the-line pq3, faster than RSP720,
should suffice no problems, how naive I
As mentioned in the thread on OSPF packet drops, I have an MX80 dropping
OSPF packets during every commit, after adding ~1500 VLAN interfaces.
The major load seems to be ppmd, not rpd. On larger MX's, it is
apparently possible to distribute ppmd processing to the line cards.
Does that work on the
In theory it should be possible. The best thing todo is configure it and do
a commit check and see what happens.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Riccardo S dim0...@hotmail.com wrote:
Mates
any other experience in regards on the initial question ?
Tks
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:00:59
Tks
I'd like to buy them after I'm aware it works... ;-)
@Darius, if you are able to try pls share the results... ;-)
tks
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:27:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] LAG on Ex4200 fiber + copper
From: ja...@freedomnet.co.nz
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
can't physically test it right now, but it commits ok.
test@test# show interfaces ge-0/0/10
ether-options {
802.3ad ae0;
}
test@test# show interfaces ge-0/1/0
ether-options {
802.3ad ae0;
}
test@test# show interfaces ae0
unit 0 {
family ethernet-switching {
port-mode
People,
Does anyone has some experience using ACX1100 or any other router from ACX
family ?
We are looking for an aggregate router for our network and we are thinking
to use ACX only with gig ports.
There is some specific questions about this router:
- Is it possible to configure policers (in
29.11.2012, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Alternative, is BFD cheap on an MX80? If I turn on BFD, I could set the
OSPF hello timers longer than the current 10 seconds. Of course that is
no good if BFD just makes even more work for the already-busy routing
engine.
AFAIK, at least as of 11.something, BFD
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:53 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Aaron Dewell
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
Hi Giuliano,
Does anyone has some experience using ACX1100 or any other router from ACX
family ?
We are looking for an aggregate router for our network and we are thinking
to use ACX only with gig ports.
There is some specific questions about this router:
As what I know, many things are
Thanks a lot for your answer.
As we can see ... version 12.2 is supporting policing (inside firewall
filters) per logical unit.
QoS
Firewall filters (access control list -ACLs) - family
On (2012-11-29 20:34 +0400), Pavel Lunin wrote:
AFAIK, at least as of 11.something, BFD was handled by RE on MX80, not
the host-CPU like it is on the big MXes. Looks like it's because the
host-CPU on MX80 is quite less quick (marketing way of reading this is
I suppose host-CPU means PFE/LC
Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru writes:
AFAIK, at least as of 11.something, BFD was handled by RE on MX80, not
the host-CPU like it is on the big MXes. Looks like it's because the
host-CPU on MX80 is quite less quick (marketing way of reading this is
it's more power and heat efficient thus more
2012/11/29 Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi
On (2012-11-29 20:34 +0400), Pavel Lunin wrote:
AFAIK, at least as of 11.something, BFD was handled by RE on MX80, not
the host-CPU like it is on the big MXes. Looks like it's because the
host-CPU on MX80 is quite less quick (marketing way of reading this
I've been using IPFIX on a few MX80's for a while now, the only impact
I've seen on the RE CPU is that it can spike to 100% during a commit, if
the router also has a full BGP table.
Otherwise the RE sits at 6%.
Using the default Jflow on the MX80's was horrible, the RE CPU would sit
around 70%
Hi,
I have a brand new MX5 router for one of my customers. The only
configuration I have on this router is
1, one login name and password
2, IP address on FXP0
3, telnet and ftp service.
I have uploaded Junos jinstall-ppc-11.2R5.4-export-signed.tgz, which is the
recommended one for MX5 on
no-validate
That is, request system software install no-validate blah
On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:25 PM, Ali Sumsam wrote:
Hi,
I have a brand new MX5 router for one of my customers. The only
configuration I have on this router is
1, one login name and password
2, IP address on FXP0
3, telnet
but that will kinda bypass it.
Should i worry about it or just ignore it?
Regards,
*Ali Sumsam CCIE*
*Network Engineer - Level 3*
eintellego Pty Ltd
a...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)410 603 531
facebook.com/eintellego
PO Box 7726,
Can you share the current version and existing config? If it really is as
simple as you say, then I would not expect a problem, but it would be
interesting to investigate why it's complaining.
--Stacy
On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Ali Sumsam ali+juniper...@eintellego.net wrote:
but that will
Thats the current version of this router.
JUNOS Base OS boot [11.4R1.14]
JUNOS Base OS Software Suite [11.4R1.14]
JUNOS Kernel Software Suite [11.4R1.14]
JUNOS Packet Forwarding Engine Support (MX80) [11.4R1.14]
JUNOS Online Documentation [11.4R1.14]
JUNOS Routing Software Suite [11.4R1.14]
and here comes the interesting part. If I try to validate after i have
upgraded the router to the new JunOS. It just validates successfully.
Regards,
*Ali Sumsam CCIE*
*Network Engineer - Level 3*
eintellego Pty Ltd
a...@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572
On (2012-11-30 08:08 +0800), Simon Dixon wrote:
I've been using IPFIX on a few MX80's for a while now, the only impact
I've seen on the RE CPU is that it can spike to 100% during a commit, if
the router also has a full BGP table.
If you use inline IPFIX export, it's in trio, and should not
25 matches
Mail list logo
