On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Saku Ytti wrote:
I believe linkedin force-feeds careless users with invites to everyone in
their address book.
And because linkedin is super busy trying to understand why P/E of 700 is fair
value, they don't have time to blacklist common mailing lists in import.
In the me
Yeah I did see this, but Im looking to avoid flow mode on the whole.
On Thursday, December 19, 2013, 雨飞 叶 wrote:
> You can also use selective packet mode: To get best of both worlds, see
>
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/app-notes/3500192-en.pdf
>
> On Thu Dec 19 2013 at 8:38:14 AM, Tom
You can also use selective packet mode: To get best of both worlds, see
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/app-notes/3500192-en.pdf
On Thu Dec 19 2013 at 8:38:14 AM, Tom Storey wrote:
> Awesome. Thanks everyone. :-)
>
> On Thursday, December 19, 2013, abdullahbaheer wrote:
>
> > Also Jserie
Awesome. Thanks everyone. :-)
On Thursday, December 19, 2013, abdullahbaheer wrote:
> Also Jseries is end of sale and will be end of support soon after, so an
> SRX would be a better option for a new deployment.
> Thanks
> Abdullah Baheer
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>
>
>
> Original m
When I telnet from a Juniper router to a device on one TCP port I get
"connection refused", but if I try some other ports I get "operation
not permitted". What is the difference between these messages? Is it
that one is failing with no response at all from the far side while
the other is failing wi
Hi Tom,
We’re using J-series in packet mode without any problems.
Enabling packet mode for MPLS will indeed put IPv4 traffic into packet mode as
well.
IPv4, IPv6, ISO and MPLS families all seem to work fine for us in JUNOS 11.4.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
On 19 Dec 2013, at 14:25, To
Also Jseries is end of sale and will be end of support soon after, so an SRX
would be a better option for a new deployment.
Thanks
Abdullah Baheer
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Phil Mayers
Date: 19/12/2013 6:09 PM (GMT+03:00)
To: Tom Storey
Cc: juniper
On 19/12/13 15:06, Tom Storey wrote:
On 19 December 2013 14:39, Phil Mayers wrote:
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
reading, enabling MPLS packet mode forces the whole box in to packet
mode,
Excellent. Seems the prospects are good then. :-)
No new purchases.
On 19 December 2013 14:25, Tom Storey wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
>
> Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
> performance hit? It l
On 19 December 2013 14:39, Phil Mayers wrote:
>> performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
>> for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
>> reading, enabling MPLS packet mode forces the whole box in to packet
>> mode, including inet4.
>
>
> Yes.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:25:05PM +, Tom Storey wrote:
> Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
>
> Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
> performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
> for packet mode (iso, i
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Tom Storey wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
>
>
When you enable packet-mode on J-Series you loose the stateful firewall
capabilities.
> Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing featu
On 19/12/13 14:25, Tom Storey wrote:
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet
mode?
We do it with no problems on both J-series and branch SRX (210H, FWIW).
Some people are annoyed about the amount of RAM consumed (wasted) by
starting the flow daemon.
Hi everyone.
Whats the general consensus about using a J series entirely in packet mode?
Are there any gotchyas to be wary of, like missing features,
performance hit? It looks like you can configure 3 address families
for packet mode (iso, inet6, mpls) but not inet4. But, from what Im
reading, en
On (2013-12-19 19:55 +0900), Paul S. wrote:
> Why exactly do these invites keep spamming these lists?
>
> Rather odd, I mean, on what logic are people trying to invite an
> entire list to add them onto linked in?
I believe linkedin force-feeds careless users with invites to everyone in
their add
Define policer as a logical interface policer. So it will be the same instance
of the policer on the all families at the same logical unit—
WBR, Nikita V. Shirokov
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Dennis Bernic
wrote:
> Hello,
> seeking to apply a policer for both ipv4 and ipv6.
> family any
Why exactly do these invites keep spamming these lists?
Rather odd, I mean, on what logic are people trying to invite an entire
list to add them onto linked in?
On 12/19/2013 午後 07:39, Mohamed Elfar a través de LinkedIn wrote:
LinkedIn
Mohamed Elfar ha solicitado añadirt
LinkedIn
Mohamed Elfar ha solicitado añadirte como contacto en LinkedIn:
--
Me gustaría añadirte a mi red profesional en LinkedIn.
Aceptar invitación de Mohamed Elfar
http://www.linkedin.com/e/u96119-hpdvn4kb-38/XqZSB0oknt5cTYQCxwU5
Hello,
seeking to apply a policer for both ipv4 and ipv6.
family any filter doesn't allow to math under destination address condition.
any clue how to perform this configuration?
running mx80 juniper platform.
BR,
--
Dennis Bernic
CCNP, Ip Network Engeneer
19 matches
Mail list logo
