On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > 1. "load replace" config with the new prefix list contents
> > 2. commit
>
>
> Try ‘load update’ first.
>
> That should be much faster than load replace.
Yes, I see it is fast, but I can't figure out the right XML to do the
equiva
Jared Mauch writes:
>Try "load update" first.
>That should be much faster than load replace.
"load update" is faster than "load override", since under the covers,
it keeps the old config and finds the delta between the new config
and the old, allowing the system to see only the changed bits of
the
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> Historically, we've implemented scripts to sync prefix-lists with
> Junoscript perl using this method:
>
> 1. get_configuration of the prefix-list
> 2. compare prefix list in router to our local copy
> 3. "load merge" config to delete pre
Historically, we've implemented scripts to sync prefix-lists with
Junoscript perl using this method:
1. get_configuration of the prefix-list
2. compare prefix list in router to our local copy
3. "load merge" config to delete prefixes that exist in the router but not
locally
4. "load merge" config
On 22 February 2016 at 21:56, Daniel Verlouw wrote:
Hey Daniel,
> while a bit cumbersome, that's possible today, using something along
> the lines of:
>
> set policy-options policy-statement direct-per-VRF from protocol direct
> set policy-options policy-statement direct-per-VRF then
> label-all
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On pre-Trio it would disable egress filters, but on Trio it won't.
yup, Trio always uses the egress proto family, whereas DPC would use
the ingress (i.e. mpls) when vrf-table-label is used.
One more reason to love Trio :-)
> I'd really wan
On 22 February 2016 at 18:18, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> My understanding is that using "per-prefix-label" will disable a lot of
> services that depend on vrf-table-label (like FW filters for example)
On pre-Trio it would disable egress filters, but on Trio it won't.
I'd really want per CE labels
I'm currently having a strange behavior on my MX5 when I have a massive
disconnection/reconnection of users. I have 8k of PPPoE users authenticated
in the box. There is a problem in eletrical company generating a outage of
5 to 10 seconds of power to customers. This problem generates a reload on
t
> From: Dragan Jovicic [mailto:dragan...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:23 PM
>
> I guess one solution would be to not use vrf-table-label at all, but default
> per-ce prefix allocation (needing vt- interface...).
>
>
My understanding is that using "per-prefix-label" will disable a
I guess one solution would be to not use vrf-table-label at all, but
default per-ce prefix allocation (needing vt- interface...).
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Adam Vitkovsky
wrote:
> > Raphael Mazelier
> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:46 PM
> >
> >
> > Le 20/02/2016 16:16, Raphael Maze
> Raphael Mazelier
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:46 PM
>
>
> Le 20/02/2016 16:16, Raphael Mazelier a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le 19/02/2016 14:08, Adam Vitkovsky a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> >
>
> And again the Oreilly book "Mpls in the SDN ERA" have three great chapters
>
Le 20/02/2016 16:16, Raphael Mazelier a écrit :
Le 19/02/2016 14:08, Adam Vitkovsky a écrit :
Thanks for the clarification.
And again the Oreilly book "Mpls in the SDN ERA" have three great
chapters on the end speficic to theses problematics ("fast restoration").
--
Raphael Mazelier
_
Dear Experts,
I would like to implement LACP between multiple interfaces of our two MX-10.
But there is a IDP-8200 between them. My doubt is, will the LACP work through
the IDP or not.
Scenario is like below
MX-10-IDP-MX-10
I don't like to make any change in the IDP to accomplish th
13 matches
Mail list logo
