Hi all.
I am querying an MX480 running Junos 14.2R5.8 via SNMPv3 for firewall
filters and their associated counters.
I notice that the query is skipping a number of firewall filters and
counters from the results. I have modified some firewall filter and
counter names so that they are short (less
I think that this recommandation makes sense: I don't see any good reason to
have, by default, eBGP routes with a better administrative distance
("preference", in Junos) than your IGP (OSPF or ISIS).
This been said, in all BGP implementations, the BGP best path selection algo
includes a [prefer
❦ 18 février 2016 10:50 GMT, Adam Vitkovsky :
>> You are right. I didn't understand your answer the first time as I thought
>> that
>> PIC was for "programmable integrated circuit", so I thought this was a plan
>> for Juniper to fix the problem with some dedicated piece of hardware.
> Sorry ab
❦ 18 février 2016 07:31 -0600, Colton Conor :
> So is the MX-104 processor really that underpowered? I have heard
> reports that is was too underpowered for its pricepoint, and now I am
> starting to believe it. Vincent what are your thoughts?
Well, I don't have enough experience with it. Howe
❦ 17 février 2016 21:07 GMT, Alexander Arseniev :
> True, one cannot match on "next-hop" in "condition", only on exact
> prefix+table name.
> But this can be done using "route isolation" approach.
> So, the overall approach is:
> 1/ create a separate table and leak a 0/0 route there matching on
> 19 feb 2016 at 00:02, Chuck Anderson wrote :
>
>> recommended 13.3R8 code. I read NSR is not supported for EVPN. If i
>> enable family evpn signalling will NSR be supported for existing l3vpn
>> functionality?
>
> Yes.
No.
But there's a workaround:
> Yes, the BGP session will reset. Alter
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:44:16AM -0800, tim tiriche wrote:
> I have an existing L3VPN network with NSR.
>
> If i want to enable EVPN, is it just a matter of enabling family evpn
> signalling on the bgp neighbors?
Yes, but you probably want at least Junos 14.1 for EVPN.
> Will doing so, cause a
Very interresting topic.
Some questions about your setup :
In 2) you set advertise-external, is it working the same by using
multipath ?
In 3) you set 'unicast protection'. It is the same thing as PIC 'protect
core' knob ?
If I understand correctly, before 15.1 PIC is only available on l3v
Hi folks
To make the discussion clearer and comming back to the Juniper MX 104
implementation
Here is a picture of 2 PEs on P and 2 peers (ISP1 and IX1)
let´s assume we want to prefer routes from IX1 over ISP1
MX1 is EBGP (lpref 100) to ISP1 and IBGP to MX2 and MX3
MX2 is EBGP (lpref 110) to I
Hello,
I have an existing L3VPN network with NSR.
If i want to enable EVPN, is it just a matter of enabling family evpn
signalling on the bgp neighbors?
Will doing so, cause a session reset or affect existing production services
or something else i need to be aware of? this will be on the junos
Hi Ytti,
I meant 9001 to 9010 and mx104 to mx240.
cpu to cpu works, but than there is the software you mentioned.
Back to Juniper. ;-)
--
Sebastian Becker
s...@lab.dtag.de
> Am 18.02.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Saku Ytti :
>
>
> On 18 February 2016 at 17:29, Sebastian Becker wrote:
>
> Hey Sebas
> sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:13 AM
>
> Just commenting on a couple things:
>
> > If the MX140-A from our previous example loses its Transit link it
> > will (via BGP-PIC) immediately reroute traffic to MX140-B However by
> default MX140-B has
On 18 February 2016 at 17:29, Sebastian Becker wrote:
Hey Sebastian,
> As AS9001 and AS9006/9010 have a different cpu architecture as MX104 and
> MX240/480/960 the comparison is not easy just by the type of the cpu itself.
ASR9001 and MX104 use same Freescale QorIQ family, so it's very direct
Hi Ytti / Colton,
ASR9001-RP
cisco ASR9K Series (P4040) processor with 8388608K bytes of memory.
P4040 processor at 1500MHz, Revision 3.0
This box ist only available as SE (service enhanced) version.
A9K-RSP440-SE
cisco ASR9K Series (Intel 686 F6M14S4) processor with 12582912K bytes of memory.
I
On 18 February 2016 at 16:21, Colton Conor wrote:
Hey Colton,
> What processor is in the Cisco 9001, and how does it compare to a MX104 in
> terms of speed and BGP Performance?
ASR9001 is P4040 on RP, lower single core performance than MX104
P5021. But the problem this thread addresses is not a
> >http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/concept/use-case-for-bgp-pic-for-inet-inet6-lu.html
>
> >>From
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/task/configuration/bgp-configuring-bgp-pic-for-inet.html
>
> "Note: The BGP PIC edge feature is supported only on rout
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:18:59PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Can you use Junos 15.1? Try this:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/concept/use-case-for-bgp-pic-for-inet-inet6-lu.html
From
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos15.1/topics/task/configuration/bgp-con
Saku,
You seems to know a bit about processors to say the least.
What processor is in the Cisco 9001, and how does it compare to a MX104 in
terms of speed and BGP Performance?
What about a Cisco 9010 ASR9K Route Switch Processor with 440G/slot Fabric
and 6GB?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Sa
Dear all ,
I'm getting unusual log in juniper MX480 router like ,
/kernel: agg_pfe_get_fwd_options: lt-0/0/0: ifd is NULL or ifl is not aggregate
/kernel: agg_pfe_fwd_options_proc: AE forwarding options not found and not
created
RPD_KRT_Q_RETRIES: Route Update: No buffer space available
RPD_K
On 18 February 2016 at 15:31, Colton Conor wrote:
> So is the MX-104 processor really that underpowered? I have heard reports
> that is was too underpowered for its pricepoint, and now I am starting to
> believe it. Vincent what are your thoughts?
Define underpowered?
MX80 has 8572, also sported
I've not used the MX104, but the MX80 is incredibly slow to commit
changes, and from discussion on this mailing list slow to converge
also. As has been mentioned though, this can be got around by using
things like BGP PIC, and LFA to maintain a valid forwarding path while
the control plane sorts it
So is the MX-104 processor really that underpowered? I have heard reports
that is was too underpowered for its pricepoint, and now I am starting to
believe it. Vincent what are your thoughts?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 17 février 2016 22:56 GMT, Adam Vitkovsky >
Just commenting on a couple things:
> If the MX140-A from our previous example loses its Transit link it will (via
> BGP-PIC) immediately reroute traffic to MX140-B
> However by default MX140-B has a best path via MX140-A -so until it receives
> withdrawn from MX140-A it'll loop traffic back to
> Vincent Bernat
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:14 PM
>
> 17 février 2016 22:56 GMT, Adam Vitkovsky
> :
>
> >> Being a bit unsatisfied with a pair of MX104 turning themselves as a
> >> blackhole during BGP convergence, I am trying to reduce the size of the
> FIB.
> >>
> > You mentioned e
> Alexander Marhold
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 9:31 AM
>
> Hi Chuck !
>
> Followed with interest the problem and especially your solution and I have
> looked into the docu BUT:
>
> DOCU says:
> " Before you begin:
>
> Configure the device interfaces.
> Configure OSPF or any other I
Hi Chuck !
Followed with interest the problem and especially your solution and I have
looked into the docu BUT:
DOCU says:
" Before you begin:
Configure the device interfaces.
Configure OSPF or any other IGP protocol.
Configure MPLS and LDP. <-- RE
26 matches
Mail list logo
