[j-nsp] ex8216 FPC Cpu high

Hi guys, I use ex8216 with firmware version 11.4R8.5. Now all the fpc cpu usage is always almost 100% : Temp CPU Utilization (%) MemoryUtilization (%) Slot State(C) Total Interrupt DRAM (MB) Heap Buffer 0 Online24100 0

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

I believe this to be the case as well - when you run a mixed-mode virtual chassis (45/42) you end up moving the entire chassis to the lowest common denominator (45xx) and reducing your ARP table size down to 8K along with associated routing entries . There's a nice side-by-side of the whole ran

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Paul S. wrote: > That lower arp limit is precisely why we're looking at the 4300, though. > > Which, by the way, does anyone happen to know if the arp limit stays the > same when the 4200s are put into VC mode -- or do they increase at all? > ​ I believe ARP is han

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

That lower arp limit is precisely why we're looking at the 4300, though. Which, by the way, does anyone happen to know if the arp limit stays the same when the 4200s are put into VC mode -- or do they increase at all? On 8/6/2014 午後 10:31, Scott Granados wrote: +1 on the 4200. Had very good

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

Hi! For simple L3 stuff (incl OSPF) we actually swapped 4300s for 4200s (mac limit not a prob). We saw a lot of problem on 4300s in L2 and L3 deployments with an earlier release (l2_ald and sflowd processes taking 100% cpu, non-responsive processes that hang after commit, etc etc). Those problems

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

+1 on the 4200. Had very good luck with the 4200 series. Also had good luck with the 4300 but there were some bugs. In a basic operation mode though they are quite stable. That being said I was really pleased with the 4200 and you might want to check them out assuming the lower arp limit isn

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

I used ex4200 to do exactly what you did before. ex4200 releases is pretty rock solid, feature extensive, although with lower arp entry limits. Given the price difference maybe you can connect each l2 domain to its own ex4200 and have them do ospf routing among selves, which maybe give you better

[j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

Hi Rob, You might also consider the recent MX104 "bundle" MX104-40G-AC-BNDL: "MX104 PROMOTIONAL BUNDLE, 40G, 2X10G BUILT-IN PORTS, 1 SERVICE MIC SLOT, 1 INTERFACE MIC SLOT, REDUNDANT AC PS. SW LICENCES INCLUDED: JUNOS, ADV-R, JFLOW-5G" Cost should be about the same as an MX5 + 2x10GE MIC (pos

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

we are using ex4300 with the last release available the setup is pretty simple using virtual chassis, lag, L3 and poe it works pretty fine and we do not have any serious problems sometimes the poe controller goes down but we have a case oppened in jtac to try solve it Sent from my iPhone > On

Re: [j-nsp] Viability of EX4300 in a primarily l3 environment?

* Paul S. [2014-08-02 05:18]: > Hi folks, > > We're considering the EX4300 to run routing (l3) for a few > hypervisors of ours that are connected via l2. > > Primarily interested due to the rather massive arp limit (64, 000) > on the switch, but we've been told (and searched for ourselves to > f

Re: [j-nsp] MX80 stops forwarding after enabling inline flow sampling

* Scott Granados [2014-07-15 16:36]: > I found more to bring this thread home. > > The problem I had was covered in PR963060. We discovered this problem a long time ago and there are already 1-2 threads on this ML where this has happend. Took Juniper some time to even acknowledge that there IS

Re: [j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

Hi, Am 06.08.2014 um 09:48 schrieb Robert Hass: Is 2x10G MIC supported in MX5 chassis ? I just need to have router with 2x10G interfaces, and best choice will be MX5-T + MIC2x10G for me. The MX5 supports every MIC (exception the MS-MIC which is only supported in the back slot) in its first sl

[j-nsp] MX5 and MIC 2x10G

Hi Is 2x10G MIC supported in MX5 chassis ? I just need to have router with 2x10G interfaces, and best choice will be MX5-T + MIC2x10G for me. But will it work or only 20xSFP are working in first MIC slot of MX5 ? Please advise Rob ___ juniper-nsp maili

Re: [j-nsp] VC in OL state (Juniper - cisco l2xconnect)

Hi On the J2320, check if your loopback interface is configured under protocols ldp. -Werner On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:06 AM, thiyagarajan b wrote: > Hi, > > I have made up a l2xconnect between cisco NPEG2 and juniper J2320 and found > the vc is not coming up. When I find the state its in OL(

[j-nsp] VC in OL state (Juniper - cisco l2xconnect)

Hi, I have made up a l2xconnect between cisco NPEG2 and juniper J2320 and found the vc is not coming up. When I find the state its in OL(no outgoing label) , I checked the LSP path is fine. What could be reason for this. Warm regards, Thiyagarajan B. __