On Monday, April 01, 2013 02:49:02 PM ashish verma wrote:
> Ingress ipv6 marking is supported on MX. You need to use 'then traffic
> class'.
That sounds like classification, not rewrite...
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
http
I think Juniper's internal IT department should be required to
immediately load any new version of software on their own offices'
switches before it is released to the general public.
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:14:10AM +0200, Jasper Jans wrote:
> I can actually confirm that on 12.3R2.5 on the M10i
I can actually confirm that on 12.3R2.5 on the M10i the Fan/Blower alarms
are still there. So it seems the PR only resolved the Fan/Blower messages
on some platforms and not all.
Apr 4 01:22:13 JuniperLog: chassisd[1421]:
%DAEMON-5-CHASSISD_SNMP_TRAP6: SNMP trap generated: Fan/Blower Removed
(jn
A reth interface is essentially an aggregated ethernet interface except only
half are active at any one time. So the difference is (almost, practically)
zero.
As to loopback termination, I've not actually tried it. I believe (without
trying or any actual data) that it requires the actual phy
Hey guys, I'm building a new cluster of SRX 5800s and prepping to move several
VPN tunnels to it. All of them are ike/ipsec.
I built a test site on a SRX210 and configured a tunnel between it and my
cluster. My tunnels aren't coming up on the 5800 side at all.
I'm using Agg Eth interfaces on eac
On Monday, April 01, 2013 02:49:02 PM ashish verma wrote:
> Ingress ipv6 marking is supported on MX. You need to use
> 'then traffic class'.
Yes, quite right.
Now all we need is EXP and we're golden.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 04:34:18 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:
> I just wanted to note, that from the money point of view
> at the time when MX80 was under construction, it /could/
> be a wise decision to not compete against products like
> CES/CER and make it more router-alike than a MetroE
> optimize
On Monday, April 01, 2013 05:44:59 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:
> Well, I'd also really like to have a Juniper box
> competing against Catalyst ME, but, again, I believe
> there might be (I don't say "there is") some common
> sense in not even trying to play this game. I can easily
> imagine sane reasons
Hi,
I have a Juniper M5(8.5R4.3) with RE-333-256 routing-engine in remote
location. I guess it has either 1x 256MiB PC66/PC100/PC133 SDRAM or 2x
128MiB PC66/PC100/PC133 SDRAM memory-modules. Under "show chassis
routing-engine" output memory utilization is 90%:
root@M5> show chassis routing-engine
Hello all,
One of our MX10s apparently has a sense of humor; it decided to bounce all of
its routing protocols early morning on the April 1st. We saw all OSPFv2,
OSPFv3, LDP, and BGP neighbors bounce at the exact same time and restore
roughly 45 seconds later. In the wake of the event we notice
On 04/03/2013 07:45 AM, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
Agg ether happens at the packet layer, each is still its own link at L1
and proper L2...
That was my thinking. It's hard to see how another link on the box can
cause framing errors, regardless of media, given that AE members are
just ethern
If you configure "vlan-id none" under the routing-instance, then all vlan tags
will be remove before transport over MPLS, and automatically the correct tag
will be pushed on egress towards CE.
Effectively, the VPLS becomes a single broadcast domain also when there are
different VLAN ID on diffe
12 matches
Mail list logo
