Are you telling me that can change from each different Junos version ?
Are there any official statement by Juniper somewhere ?
Tks
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:37:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Screenos 2 Junos
From: m...@deimark.net
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
It depends
Are you telling me that can change from each different Junos version ?
Are there any official statement by Juniper somewhere ?
Tks
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:37:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Screenos 2 Junos
From: m...@deimark.net
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
It depends
It depends on the versions you are looking at.
As far as I know there can be a few differences in timers and defaults. I
got hit a few years ago with screen defaults where junos had a more strict
set if values than the old screenos box.
If you can load the junos image on another box and review
Does
anybody knows any difference among Screenos and Junos in terms of default
timeout
for any kind of services/protocol ?
Tks
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.
Node 1’s configuration
发件人: Muhammad Atif Jauhar [mailto:atif.jau...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2013年8月5日 21:36
收件人: 徐见
抄送: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
主题: Re: [j-nsp] 答复: SRX650 full-mesh vpn, ssh not passed
Hi,
Is it possible to share configuration of Node 1, Node 2 and Node 3. and also
output of
Hey all,
Am I being dense, or now that 'family inet6' can be configured on an st0.x
interface, does it not actually work?
I've configured the following on a pair of J6350 clusters;
set interfaces st0 unit 634 description rmdcccjs-dwdcccjs
set interfaces st0 unit 634 family inet mtu 1500
set in
Hi,
Is it possible to share configuration of Node 1, Node 2 and Node 3. and
also output of Show route of Network behind Node 1 and Node 2 and Node 3 at
all Nodes (1, 2, and 3).
Regards,
Atif.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, 徐见 wrote:
> Actually, when I disable the first link of node 1, all n
Actually, when I disable the first link of node 1, all nodes could pass
every kind of traffic well, except node 2.
And I build an same lab system, the issue not happen.
-邮件原件-
发件人: Ojamo, V. [mailto:lists.vi...@ojamo.eu]
发送时间: 2013年8月5日 15:02
收件人: '徐见'; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
主题: RE:
I'm so sorry, new link is here:
Physical link:
http://xiangce.baidu.com/picture/detail/b99b8391244c49d2e545b055e33bb5567905
7dc2?type=gallery#f014b9639630fd5f0bd300d3bf2f8bcf2019be9a
logical link:
http://xiangce.baidu.com/picture/detail/b99b8391244c49d2e545b055e33b
Hi,
No, in theory there shouldn't be untrusted devices there,
that's right, but cannot exclude that neither: in some opportunity i
remember that customer forgot to configure the protection filter onto
new boxes recently installed. Who knows
Unfortunately customer
doesn't have a very robu
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 07:29:22AM +0200, Cristian Frizziero wrote:
> Just to give you an example, here in Telecom Italia all
> the POPS are setted as NSSA areas, and inside them there are 2 ABRs that
> are connected to ALL their edge boxes onto 2 VLANs, so we have a wide
> use of broadcast do
11 matches
Mail list logo