On Monday, July 22, 2013 03:36:28 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:
I'm afraid this explanation needs to be expanded a bit.
High LP on the ISP side for customers' routes is a
common practice, but this makes the perpended AS-PATH
(and other BGP attributes) ignored only within the ISP
AS.
Yes, this is
On Sunday, July 21, 2013 09:40:29 AM Saku Ytti wrote:
For eBGP this is manageable, as there must already be
system for per-eBGP session configuration.
To clarify my statement, if the sessions terminated on one
router, then I'm happy to share the password as having two
groups becomes another
It depends how careful you want to be about it. Multipath and adding the
peer as you've described will get you half traffic on each immediately
which is fine assuming the circuit is good, etc.
If it were me, I'd probably bring up the new one with a different policy
(same group, policy under the
23.07.2013 16:16, Mark Tinka wrote:
I'm afraid this explanation needs to be expanded a bit.
High LP on the ISP side for customers' routes is a
common practice, but this makes the perpended AS-PATH
(and other BGP attributes) ignored only within the ISP
AS.
Yes, this is true.
However, if your
22.07.2013 19:09, Gavin Henry wrote:
This is the info we got from our supplier in UK who is a Juniper Elite
partner:
It's the same functionality and operation, just comes with 2G memory.
It's part of a general refresh of the line that Juniper are doing just now
to support future applications.
Hi guys,
I'm using Juniper hardware to sample traffic and dump it to NetFlow
data. In my config, the sampling rate is 1000, run-length is 0.
According to the docs [1], this means that 1 out of 1000 packets per
flow is sampled. Does this mean that *always* the first (1001st, 2001st,
3001st, ...)
On 24/07/2013, at 12:53 AM, Pavel Lunin plu...@senetsy.ru wrote:
22.07.2013 19:09, Gavin Henry wrote:
This is the info we got from our supplier in UK who is a Juniper Elite
partner:
It's the same functionality and operation, just comes with 2G memory.
It's part of a general refresh of
Ben,
Thank you for the explanation. I verified that it works through some
testing.
I guess I am just accustomed to the Cisco way of doing things, where you
can have a whole group of IP subnets on one vlan all sharing the same VRRP
address, including the facilitating of MAC address
Hi All,
Just got a couple of new EX4550 switches... current recommended version is
12.2r2.5
But I just saw tha the 12.2 train is up release 5.3.
Just wondering what the rest of you guys are running and if you have any
horror stories.
I'm not doing VC with these guys, they are going to be a
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 04:34:30 PM Pavel Lunin wrote:
Yep. This consideration implicitly means that an obvious
(at the first glance) idea to buy a broader link from a
cheaper and smaller ISP and a narrower one from a larger
and usually more expensive ISP is apparently wrong. Very
frequent
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 03:27:23 AM Luca Salvatore
wrote:
Just got a couple of new EX4550 switches... current
recommended version is 12.2r2.5 But I just saw tha the
12.2 train is up release 5.3.
Just wondering what the rest of you guys are running and
if you have any horror stories.
I pulled one out of the box the other day and whatever it shipped with wouldn't
bring up 10G DAC cables (Cisco branded) and the backlight on the LCD panel
didn't work (?!!) until I upgraded it (12.3R3), which fixed both issues.
On 24/07/2013, at 2:49 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
12 matches
Mail list logo
