Hi Alexandre,
Hmmm looks like you are trying to accomplish something fishy here :) (probably
involving loopback right?)
Can you please expand on what your end goal is please, there might be some
other way to skin the cat.
adam
>
Adam Vitkovsky
IP Engineer
T: 0333 006 593
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
> If we're speaking about "quality of life" stuff then I wish JunOS/FreeBSD
> traceroute would stop adding source routing bit when you include source
> interface/gateway/bypass-routing.
>
JUNOS currently uses a version of traceroute that
Stepan Kucherenko writes:
>What else...oh, annotate ! It's clunky and not very easy to use.
Yes, annotate is a sore spot. I made the grammar production:
K_ANNOTATE annotate_target T_STRING
with the expectation that I'd be able to coerce a path into the
target, but it didn't happen. I shoul
Hi!
Imagine there is a directly connected network:
A.B.C.40/29 *[Direct/0] 41w1d 00:10:40
> via xe-0/0/2.232
There is a good old trick: you can configure 'self-pointing'
host route with next-hop within this network:
snar@router> show configuration routing-options static
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:05 PM
>
> On 22 October 2015 at 14:31, Adam Vitkovsky
> wrote:
> > I see, so no possibility to offload BGP to another node nor multi-chassis
> capability in Junos right?
> > With regards to IPC, there got to be some XR fo
On 22/10/15 15:06, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
The approach to run rpd on one core, and other process on avaibles one
is a quick win. And optimizing the actual code before thinking in
paralelism may be a faster approach to make speed gain ?
Sure, moving the rest of the OS onto other cores is a no-
In fairness, concurrency is "teh hardz" on any platform, in any framework.
You can use threads and shared memory then problems two you have.
You can bodge it by serialising everything and pushing data between
threads/processes with queues and using craploads of locking, but you
typically wa
If we're speaking about "quality of life" stuff then I wish
JunOS/FreeBSD traceroute would stop adding source routing bit when you
include source interface/gateway/bypass-routing.
It's being filtered EVERYWHERE in real world so it's not possible to
look at the second-best route via non-active
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:51:10AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 22/Oct/15 00:40, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > And finally putting commas in the monitor interface traffic output.
>
> Or just use the correct units of measurement, e.g., Kbps, Mbps, Gbps and
> Tbps :-).
I so wish there was a '-h' flag
Well you may see the ability to run the Junos CP on more powerful external
servers with virtualized hardware, I think a few vendors are working on those
type of a solutions. Juniper has done similar things in the past with
multi-chassis.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: "Adam Vitkovsk
On 22/10/15 13:05, Saku Ytti wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 14:31, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
I see, so no possibility to offload BGP to another node nor multi-chassis
capability in Junos right?
With regards to IPC, there got to be some XR folks in Juniper so where's the
holdup :)
IOS-XR seems to
On 22 October 2015 at 14:31, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> I see, so no possibility to offload BGP to another node nor multi-chassis
> capability in Junos right?
> With regards to IPC, there got to be some XR folks in Juniper so where's the
> holdup :)
IOS-XR seems to have fair share problems with th
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:54 AM
> On 22 October 2015 at 10:38, Adam Vitkovsky
> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > I thought that's the plan to separate routing protocols to separate
> processes or is this concerning only BGP?
>
> Not processes, threads, due
On 22 October 2015 at 10:38, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Hey,
> I thought that's the plan to separate routing protocols to separate processes
> or is this concerning only BGP?
Not processes, threads, due to IPC concerns.
--
++ytti
___
juniper-nsp maili
On 22 October 2015 at 08:30, Bradley Gould
wrote:
Hey,
> "routing-options interface-routes" already exists, so keeping commonality
> with "routing-options static":
>
> set routing-options interface-routes family inet community [ 1:1 2:2 3:3 ]
> set routing-options interface-routes interface xe-
Hi Jeff,
> Jeff Haas
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:16 PM
>
>
> That said, we are preserving the One JUNOS paradigm. Even if we did go
> multi-process with disjoint protocol implementation (that's not what we're
> doing),
>
Can you expand on this please?
I thought that's the plan to separ
On 22/Oct/15 09:12, Raphael Mazelier wrote:
>
>
> +1. When I begin to use Junos I was really surprised/frustated that I
> couldn't use tag/communities on connected, which break the classic
> logic of redistributing route in junos. That said this is even worse
> on other network os.
In IOS and
Le 21/10/15 23:44, Chad Myers a écrit :
On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Tarko Tikan wrote:
hey,
set interfaces xe-1/2/3 unit 42 family inet address 1.2.3.4/30 tag Z
set interfaces xe-1/2/3 unit 42 family inet address 1.2.3.4/30 community K
Thats what I had in mind as well.
I'm for that me
18 matches
Mail list logo
