Le 11/05/15 11:31, Mark Tinka a écrit :
On 11/May/15 11:11, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
We have seen this on our EX4550 switches.
The uplink toward the upstream routers is an 802.1Q LAG, where the aeX
interface graphs actual traffic, but the aeX.Y interface just graphs
control traffic.
* Raphael Mazelier r...@futomaki.net
Have you notive/hit some performance problems with this config ?
No.
Tore
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Le 11/05/15 11:27, Tore Anderson a écrit :
It's quite annoying indeed.
I wonder if someone ever faced this problem, and if there is some king
of workarround. The goal is to monitoring traffic, and billing.
The way I do it is to create input and output firewall filters for each
configured
On 11/May/15 11:38, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
That was the plan yes. If I had correclty evaluate/made more test, I
have done this differently, and just use EX for what they are made
(switching).
I know this does not help you now, but in general, switches are very bad
at being routers. The
I've just realized there is another pretting annoying problem with EX
series. It seems that is was not possible to count passing in
subinterface (or vlan interface) on EX.
Quoting the documentation :
Note: For logical interfaces on EX Series switches, the traffic
statistics fields in show
On 11/May/15 11:11, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
I've just realized there is another pretting annoying problem with EX
series. It seems that is was not possible to count passing in
subinterface (or vlan interface) on EX.
Quoting the documentation :
Note: For logical interfaces on EX Series
On 11/May/15 12:07, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
Speaking about EX4550
I think they are OK for basic routing.
In my use case (l3vpn, and customers demarcation) results are mixed.
They worked, they are stable but :
Remaining problems are :
- l2vpn mess (I ve found a working config, but
Le 11/05/15 11:49, Mark Tinka a écrit :
Juniper have never really had a proper router that comes in a switch
form-factor. We are evaluating the ACX5000 platform for this, and it
looks very promising; but its use of off-the-shelf silicon is getting in
the way. The EX (certainly the 1U
* Raphael Mazelier r...@futomaki.net
I've just realized there is another pretting annoying problem with EX
series. It seems that is was not possible to count passing in
subinterface (or vlan interface) on EX.
It's quite annoying indeed.
I wonder if someone ever faced this problem, and if
On 11/May/15 13:27, Olivier Benghozi wrote:
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/reference/configuration-statement/routing-edit-system-processes.html
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/reference/configuration-statement/routing-edit-system-processes.html
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/reference/configuration-statement/routing-edit-system-processes.html
Statement introduced in Junos OS
Hi experts,
Kindly i want to know if there is someone who implement CFM between Juniper
Mx480 and Alcatel router.
The issue is that from Alcatel router, there is no neighbors detection.
From Juniper router, i can see the neighor but with this error:
Erroneous CCM received:
Hi Colton,
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com
wrote:
So what is going to be the next recommended JTAC version after 12.3R8.7?
The recommended release for most MX platforms changed the other day, to
13.3R6.
Cheers,
Dale
MX80s are still showing 12.3R8.7 as the recommended.
Tim Raphael
On 12/05/2015 8:40 am, Dale Shaw dale.shaw+j-...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Colton,
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com
wrote:
So what is going to be the next recommended JTAC version after
Colleagues,
I have several ex4200-24t switches with JunOS 12.3R6.6 and an Advanced
licensed routing protocols license.
Is there a way to tunnel L2 traffic over an IP network between two
ex4200-24t switches? I wish to emulate a L2 trunk (with several VLANs,
MSTP and OAM) over a Layer3 network.
Hi Victor,
The only way I am aware of that works with ex4200s is tunnelling over
MPLS. This would require MPLS on the backbone to work.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/topics/task/configuration/mpls-ex-series-provider-edge-switches-ccc-cli.html
Cheers,
Mark
On Tue, May 12,
Mark Tees wrote:
The only way I am aware of that works with ex4200s is tunnelling over
MPLS. This would require MPLS on the backbone to work.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos13.2/topics/task/configuration/mpls-ex-series-provider-edge-switches-ccc-cli.html
The third party IP
So what is going to be the next recommended JTAC version after 12.3R8.7?
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk
wrote:
12.3R8.7 is going to be end of support next year and I'd expect Juniper to
let people know what will be the recommended replacement some
I'm pretty sure MPLS over GRE is not supported on EX4200's. I would
have my doubts that PFE could do it.
If you want to do that you would be better off getting two of the
branch SRX's (depending on traffic levels) to do this I think as it
will give you more flexibility.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at
Hello,
We use egress shapers on our Juniper MX. They uses a default burst size that
are set automatically based on the size of the shaper. So far, these defaults
have served us well.
We have notice that some downstream devices that perform rate conversion can't
seem to buffer the bursts
On (2015-05-11 15:54 +), Serge Vautour wrote:
Hey,
The setup above works fine when DeviceB is connected at 1G on both
interfaces. Likewise, it works fine when Start-DeviceA is also 100M. With the
exact setup above, when DeviceB does 1G to 100M conversion, it can't seem to
handle the
21 matches
Mail list logo
