Hi,
Does junos have the cisco limitation of 2 SPAN session per plateform ?
Br.
Kayssar
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of ext Terry
Jones
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:02 AM
To: Sivasankar
Hi,
I am getting this work but on SRX 3600 10.4R7.5 :
area 0.0.0.1 {
nssa summaries;
network-summary-export To-OSPF-A1;
interface reth0.1767;
}
policy-options policy-statement To-OSPF-A1
term 1 {
from {
protocol ospf;
route-filter X.X.X.X/Y exact;
}
Hi ,
I have no exact idea about the number of instances you can configure in
each platform(juniper).but i read it is 2 instances on mx960 on the same
ports;only 1 instance at global level.
Any experts please confirm the number of port-mirroring instances on
juniper devices or atleast on mx960.?
Hi folks..
We have a customer that has a Cisco 6500 - very old and they want to retire
it out of service (12+ years old). The customer is a municipal fiber
provider and their main business is providing connectivity (vs providing
Internet).
They have approached us about a Juniper
Hi,
Am 10.01.2013 14:03, schrieb Paul Stewart:
Per port ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting with burst)
Per VLAN ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting on a per VLAN
basis with burst)
As you mentioned this could be the problem or showstopper.
We have not yet
Just avoid the 4500 if you need anything less than 1G copper. The ports on the
4500 won't negotiate to 10 or 100. I was told by the sales engineer that this
switch is a top of rack switch so it doesn't support anything less than 1G.
I found that funny since I have a whole rack of Avaya gear
Thanks but this is pure layer2 deployments (typically). I should have
clarified that some of the VLAN's have IP but most are to link buildings
together within a metro etc
Really, this is more of a metro ethernet type of environment.
I'll read up again on this but I'm comparing this
Thanks - yup, we are just deploying some EX4500 at a customer site and ended
up keeping their EX4200's just for 100 meg ports ;(
-Original Message-
From: James S. Smith [mailto:jsm...@windmobile.ca]
Sent: January-10-13 9:00 AM
To: 'li...@tobias-heister.de'; 'p...@paulstewart.org'
Cc:
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:23 AM
To: 'Per Granath'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] EX Switch Question
Thanks but this is
Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org writes:
Per VLAN ingress and egress bandwidth control (rate limiting on a per VLAN
basis with burst)
That sounds like hierarchial shaping. You need MX for that, and even
then you may meet challenges doing it on ingress.
I would have thought that the 6500
Hello,
Tobias Heister (Thu 2013-01-10 14:31:40 +0100) :
We have not yet found an EX platform (tried
2200/3200/4200/4500/8200) which supported policing on egress (using
Firewall filters and policing, never tried using QoS)
I don't know for the OP needs but for shure EX4200 does not have:
-
Thank you - yes, both of those issues you highlighted have created problems
for us especially lack of tcp established
Paul
-Original Message-
From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Halbwachs
Sent: January-10-13
Thanks
We have a 6500 installation running hybrid IOS/CatOS and the CatOS component
does it quite well. On another installation with MSFC2 supervisors and
native IOS we also have it working... both installations are very ancient
10+ years
:)
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Benny
On 01/10/2013 10:21 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Thank you - yes, both of those issues you highlighted have created problems
for us especially lack of tcp established
note also that (i believe still) packets which would pass through the
box (when it's doing L3 things) but expire on the box...
I'm curious if anyone has been using MX's in a VC config. It's supported on the
new MPC blades, but supposedly not with the older DPCs.
I haven't done any testing yet, just minimal research.
Why would I want to? Well, I'm after redundancy with my services blades.
Specifically, MS-DPCs. I've
Just don't go there. EX is in no way a metro SP switch.
Very common case, we've been discussing it with many customers, who
their-selves want a Juniper metro SP solution, maybe once a week since
the EX series was launched. After all that I am 100% sure this is not
what EX is all about.
Thanks Pavel...
So is there anything reasonably priced in the Juniper lineup for this kind
of situation or do we look at Cisco/other?
Cheers,
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Lunin [mailto:plu...@senetsy.ru]
Sent: January-10-13 11:32 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc:
On (2013-01-10 14:53 +), OBrien, Will wrote:
I'm curious if anyone has been using MX's in a VC config. It's supported on
the new MPC blades, but supposedly not with the older DPCs.
I haven't done any testing yet, just minimal research.
Why would I want to? Well, I'm after redundancy
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-01-10 14:53 +), OBrien, Will wrote:
I'm curious if anyone has been using MX's in a VC config. It's supported on
the new MPC blades, but supposedly not with the older DPCs.
I haven't done any testing yet, just
On (2013-01-10 12:41 -0500), Darius Jahandarie wrote:
With multi-chassis technology you can gain something which was not
possible without it, namely the ability to protect against total
hardware failure of your direct uplink switch/router by using an
MC-LAG to your server.
If your server is
Does anyone have experiences / thoughts to share on EX4550 series?
Thanks,
james
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
http://domaine-de-montboulon.com/work.at.home.n.php?ID=020
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
I get sick of these idiots sending this...
Does Juniper have any protection they can offer the puck list? :)
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Route through google groups , Then it only bothers moderators.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Paulhamus, Jon jpaulha...@iu17.org wrote:
I get sick of these idiots sending this...
Does Juniper have any protection they can offer the puck list? :)
Hi Graham,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Graham Brown
juniper-...@grahambrown.info wrote:
This is where the SRX platform differs from that of the M/T/MX etc. BFD
processing is NOT offloaded to the PFEs - this is all done by the RE. This
has caused one of my customers many problems and
On 1/10/2013 5:28 AM, Gabriel Blanchard wrote:
Yes, just bought the book, for anyone that has MXes deployed...highly
recommend.
And Doug, just noticed, didn't you write this book? :-P
Says Douglas Richard Hanks on my copy. Which is getting a little more thumb
eared
by the day. :-)
As the list owner (it's not run by juniper) these are harder to block than you
think and not that easy.
Jared Mauch
On Jan 10, 2013, at 4:53 PM, 叶雨飞 sunyuc...@gmail.com wrote:
Route through google groups , Then it only bothers moderators.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Paulhamus, Jon
27 matches
Mail list logo
