Just a follow-up.
It seems, beside of the fact that RPF seems not failing, that sometime the
mcast flow
is reached by another vlan and we get a kernel mismatch.
Thanks to David for the help.
Tks
___
juniper-nsp
Hi list,
Could someone please confirm if we can or can not configure the router
interface to get an IPv6 address automatically. I read more than one place
that says this is not possible, but I could not find an official link from
Juniper website to confirm it. It is disappointing, if this is the
On Jan 15, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Stacy W. Smith st...@acm.org wrote:
On Jan 15, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Dennis Krul | Tilaa den...@tilaa.nl wrote:
Can you tell the PR number you tried to avoid initially ?
I wasn't trying to avoid it. I just thought it wouldn't be interesting,
because it's an
Hi
I have VPN between Cisco 2900 and SRX 240. VPN is working good, but guys
on Cisco side would like to have also access to my second subnet
10.16.0.0/24
How to handle this on SRX side ? I can have only one possition at
proxy-identity local
My config:
set security ipsec vpn TEST ike
Hi Huan,
This is not currently possible on a Junos OS router. You must assign the
address or at least the prefix portion of the address and then use EUI-64 to
auto-generate the interface ID portion, which is based on the interface's
hardware address. Hope this helps.
Jared
Juniper solution is to either set up multiple tunnels, one for each
proxy-id, or to convert the remote side to route-based VPN.
On the Cisco side it is implemented via VTI, for IPSec traffic have a
tunnel interface like GRE tunnel and place traffic onto it via routing
instead of crypto-maps.
16.01.2013 20:46, Anton Yurchenko wrote:
Juniper solution is to either set up multiple tunnels, one for each
proxy-id, or to convert the remote side to route-based VPN.
On the Cisco side it is implemented via VTI, for IPSec traffic have a
tunnel interface like GRE tunnel and place traffic
Try to make this short. I don't have any gear that I can run in a lab setting to
really get to know how Juniper BGP stuff works so we get some help and
they give me access to an MX to play on once in a while.
Have 3 BGP peers. Have four networks we are announcing.
Peer #1 - all 4 networks are
Is this why we have such a low number of active prefixes on peer 2 and 3?
Probably, yes. Do a show route extensive in few inactive prefix and it will
tell you the reason why it is in inactive state.
What would be the effects of removing the local-preference 50 from peer 2
and 3 on our traffic?
Thanks very much Jared. That saves me time scratching my head for a
solution which does not exist.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Jared Gull jmg...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Huan,
This is not currently possible on a Junos OS router. You must assign the
address or at least the prefix portion of
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Keith wrote:
Peer #1 - all 4 networks are prepended with our AS 5 times:
Okay so far...
This way I have two networks coming in on one gig link and the other two
networks are coming in over the other gig link.
No, you don't. You have all 4 networks coming in on all 4
On 1/16/2013 10:11 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Keith wrote:
Peer #1 - all 4 networks are prepended with our AS 5 times:
Okay so far...
This way I have two networks coming in on one gig link and the other two
networks are coming in over the other gig link.
No, you
12 matches
Mail list logo
