Re: [j-nsp] EX2200 rate limiting per port ?

2013-10-17 Thread Mark Tinka
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 04:55:43 AM joe mcguckin wrote: I'm looking for a small switch that can rate limit traffic in and out per port with a granularity of 5mb or less. Typical application would be ethernet distribution within a building where each office gets a (possibly different)

Re: [j-nsp] EX2200 rate limiting per port ?

2013-10-17 Thread Alexandre Snarskii
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:46:45AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: I'm looking for a small switch that can rate limit traffic in and out per port with a granularity of 5mb or less. Typical application would be ethernet distribution within a building where each office gets a (possibly different)

Re: [j-nsp] EX2200 rate limiting per port ?

2013-10-17 Thread Mark Tinka
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:23:12 AM Alexandre Snarskii wrote: Actually, EX-series supports egress shaping, which may be sufficient in this case (iirc, shapers applied port-wide, there are no way to shape this vlan and do not shape (or shape differently) another one). There are cases

[j-nsp] LACP/LAG

2013-10-17 Thread Keith
Hi. Any reason not to run LACP on a LAG link? Setting up a new LAG with some gear on our MX and have setup the AE interface and turned it up, but have not actually cut traffic over to it yet. They were saying run in passive or no LACP, with it just On cisco one does: channel-group x mode

Re: [j-nsp] LACP/LAG

2013-10-17 Thread Bill Blackford
I recently had to form a bundle between an EX and a Palo Alto Firewall. The PAN does *not* support LACP. Personally, I'd rather use LACP whenever and where ever it's supported. It too would be interested in hearing others views on the need for it. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Keith

Re: [j-nsp] LACP/LAG

2013-10-17 Thread Keith
Resending with edits...doh. On 10/17/2013 2:00 PM, Keith wrote: Hi. Any reason not to run LACP on a LAG link? Setting up a new LAG with some gear on our MX and have setup the AE interface and turned it up, but have not actually cut traffic over to it yet. The vendor of the gear the MX is

Re: [j-nsp] LACP/LAG

2013-10-17 Thread Graham Brown
LACP is great until you hit a box that is busy and doesn't offload this to the line card - for busy switches and firewalls, use periodic-slow instead of fast - I've had instances of EX and SRX that can't keep up with periodic-fast and the LAG ends up being torn down during commits. Bear in mind

Re: [j-nsp] LACP/LAG

2013-10-17 Thread Christopher E. Brown
Unless you like losing traffic or looping traffic stay away from unconditional channeling. There are a number of situations ranging from a failing linecard/port to a simple misconfig that will leave the links up but not properly functional. Possible issues... All traffic going down link X

Re: [j-nsp] LACP/LAG

2013-10-17 Thread Kurt Bales
Like most of the replies here, I usually run LACP where ever possible. Its a worth it for the added assurance that things are cabled correctly and both sides agree on port pairs. Having said that, there are some caveats: - On some hardware, certain features are not supported on AE interfaces,