[j-nsp] JNCIP-SP with JNCIE-SP Bootcamp preparation

Hello, I'm currently looking at the JNCIP-SP certification and after that eventually the JNCIE-SP exam. To prepare for JNCIP-SP I was told to just take the JNCIE-SP Bootcamp as this would prepare me for JNCIP-SP as well. On the other hand I heared from a few people that the bootcamp only prepares

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

On 13/Oct/15 15:41, Dave Bell wrote: > Alternatively drop the iBGP session between the two MX80s. Depending > on the topology, it may not be needed. Yep, that'll work too. But then just to be safe, have a default route on each MX80 to the upstreams, in case the full table each upstream provide

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

Alternatively drop the iBGP session between the two MX80s. Depending on the topology, it may not be needed. Regards, Dave On 13 October 2015 at 14:38, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 13/Oct/15 15:18, Dave Bell wrote: > >> >> Packet is sent to the EX. It does a route lookup, and has its default >> rou

Re: [j-nsp] MPC2E vs MPC2E NG

Hi, Am 13.10.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Adam Vitkovsky: Reading the SW features For example “Chained composite next hops” -these are there since ever so what’s changed And the rest of the stuff like ”Layer 3 VPN localization” (is going to be the same fun as SVD on XR) are all of those only avail

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

On 13/Oct/15 15:18, Dave Bell wrote: > > Packet is sent to the EX. It does a route lookup, and has its default > route set at MX80 A. Packet is forwarded to MX80 A. > Packet is received by MX80 A. It does a route lookup, and the best > route is via MX80 B. Packet is forwarded to EX. > EX receive

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

Hi Chad, How is this iBGP session formed? Is it over L3 links via the EX, or do they have a direct physical link? If it is via the EX, then the issue may be with it not having a full routing table, like your MX80s. Packet is sent to the EX. It does a route lookup, and has its default route set a

Re: [j-nsp] MPC2E vs MPC2E NG

From what I know, "NG" only means "same features than before but with added memory for Flexible Queuing Option feature (with additional license)". This one: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/concept/flexible-queueing-mode-overview.html

Re: [j-nsp] MPC2E vs MPC2E NG

More memory and cpu for higher scale New mid range qos support lower cost My top differences Check with your Juiper team for the complete list On Oct 13, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hi folks, I’m wondering what is the actual difference between these two (other than the fact th

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

On 13/Oct/15 15:04, Chad Levy wrote: > Hi Mark, > > The default gateway of the machine is the EX4500. > > I have since tried another scenario. If I place both ISPs on the same > MX80, and the same asymmetric route exists on the ingress and egress, > there is no longer an issue with connectivity.

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

Hi Mark, The default gateway of the machine is the EX4500. I have since tried another scenario. If I place both ISPs on the same MX80, and the same asymmetric route exists on the ingress and egress, there is no longer an issue with connectivity. I only have an issue when the ingress and egress

[j-nsp] MPC2E vs MPC2E NG

Hi folks, I’m wondering what is the actual difference between these two (other than the fact that the NG weights one Kg more) Reading the SW features For example “Chained composite next hops” -these are there since ever so what’s changed And the rest of the stuff like ”Layer 3 VPN localizatio