Hey All,
Getting these error spammed in our logs, one IRB is getting VRRP packets it
seems from some source? I'm thinking its a server inside the network that
is trying to use the gateway, but I'm honestly stumped...
Any help is GREATLY appreciated
Thanks
Hi Guys,
You can see topology on link below.
http://s21.postimg.org/nz2wsuy1z/design.jpg
I have plenty of routing-instances (VRFs) on PE but lets say a subnet
10.1.1.0/24 is directly attached with PE via different interfaces in two
routing-instances (A, B). It is required to route traffic from g
just to be clear -- t1.606 is not supported. are you referring to t1.602 and
t1.607 as being supported?
q.
-= sent via ipad. please excuse brevity, spelling, and grammar =-
On Sep 26, 2013, at 13:18, Phil Fagan wrote:
> Looks like only 102 and 107; not 106.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:
I'm curious on the load sharing you mentioned here...
So you have a VPLS path from DSLAM going to two different BNG nodes at the
same time? How does the PPPOE session setup work - first one to answer?
(presuming you are referring to PPPOE)
Love to hear more about this as we have talked about sce
thanks, phil!
q.
-= sent via ipad. please excuse brevity, spelling, and grammar =-
On Sep 26, 2013, at 15:59, Phil Fagan wrote:
> I was actually refering to t1.102 and t1.107, however, t1.617 is the only
> supported frame service I see on the SRX.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM, qui
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Phil Fagan wrote:
Is your aggregate policy already on the MX and is its purpose to export into
BGP from OSPF?
That's the idea... There are disparate contributing routes, and they tend
to come and go on a fairly regular basis. Generating like aggregates
elsewhere and le
The reason for the VPLS use is that we have multiple BNG nodes that load share
the PPPoE sessions. And to mitigate single points of failure.
I believe Juniper might just be looking into this scenario as well.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@p
I was actually refering to t1.102 and t1.107, however, t1.617 is the only
supported frame service I see on the SRX.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM, quinn snyder wrote:
> just to be clear -- t1.606 is not supported. are you referring to t1.602
> and t1.607 as being supported?
>
> q.
>
> -= sent
Is your aggregate policy already on the MX and is its purpose to export
into BGP from OSPF?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Rob Foehl wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Another OSPF issue for the day: I have a somewhat specific need to match a
> route from a particular OSPF speaker in an aggregate policy
Looks like only 102 and 107; not 106.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:50 PM, quinn snyder wrote:
> all --
>
> just a quick reachout. trying to dig through docs and either missing the
> boat or it doesn't exist. either way…
>
> i need to know if the srx240 supports the frame-relay standard t1.606.
>
...on Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:15:38PM +0200, Alexander Bochmann wrote:
> We've even been floating the idea of dropping in a Virtual Chassis
> distributed
> over both sites as "interconnection" - which seems quite charming, as it
Turns out someone else asked just that question on the Juniper
11 matches
Mail list logo