Re: [j-nsp] cgnat routing architecture

I’m unable to see this work. I tried the following… But first let me state my goal again… I simply want to create a condition whereas if I have the 0/0 route in vrf “one” to go ahead and generate the route 0/0 into vrf “six”. And so conversely, if I lose the 0/0 route in vrf one, then I

[j-nsp] Secure JUNOS IP Multicast Template

Friends, With all credit to Lenny Giuliano, we're happy to make this secure configuration template available: John ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [j-nsp] Suppressing SNMP Trap to just one packet

Serge, Looks like this will be showing up in 15.1F6. -- Jeff > On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:48 AM, serge vautour wrote: > > Neat option. I have 15.1F5 running in the lab and don't see it as a regular > or hidden knob. The Juniper PR database doesn't list a "Resolved In"

Re: [j-nsp] Suppressing SNMP Trap to just one packet

Neat option. I have 15.1F5 running in the lab and don't see it as a regular or hidden knob. The Juniper PR database doesn't list a "Resolved In" version. Looking forward to seeing this one available. Serge On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Haas wrote: > I was clearing

Re: [j-nsp] cgnat routing architecture

Hello, Run BGP through MS-MIC and You'd have conditional scenarios covered plus the following: 1/ Service PIC is misconfigured (i.e. service-set does not exist) 2/ Service PIC has flow-control enabled because i.e. incoming PPS is above the rated value Thanks Alex On 11/04/2016 10:55, Faizal

Re: [j-nsp] cgnat routing architecture

Hi Aaron, You should apply dynamic redistribution of default route to your internal network. First you need to have dynamic 0/0 in your outside domain, it can be generated (aggregated) from routes contributed by bgp (assuming your cgnat also running ebgp to your upstream provider), or generated by

Re: [j-nsp] Questions about T640

Thank you all for your concern. Anyway is there anyone who actually answer my questions about features which I asked before? 1- GRE Tunnels 2- GRE Keepalive (OAM) 3- 802.1q over 802.1ad 4- MPLS TE 5- ATOM VLAN re-write Thank you all From:

Re: [j-nsp] Questions about T640

I'm sorry, but I'd agree with the others in that I'd replace an M series with an MX or a T series with the PTX. As Jimmy has shown, the vast majority of parts have been EOL'd and if I were investing in a new device it would be the MX or PTX. I'm very surprised that the T Series works out

Re: [j-nsp] Questions about T640

On 11/04/16 08:55, Alireza Soltanian wrote: > No T640 and T4000 are still manufactured. Anyway is there anybody who can > provide answer? > > On Apr 11, 2016 11:24 AM, "Fredrik Korsbäck" > wrote: > > You do realize that most of T-series is EOL? >

Re: [j-nsp] Suppressing SNMP Trap to just one packet

On 8 April 2016 at 21:44, Jeff Haas wrote: > PR: 1056230 > > set protocols bgp snmp-options backward-traps-only-from-established Cool, thanks for this! This is really standard issue, the trap itself should contain previous state, but this is fantastic workaround to broken

Re: [j-nsp] Questions about T640

resend I'm sorry, For T640, How about this announcement ? https://gallery.mailchimp.com/1466897c24c515e6739f14c9e/files/TSB16819.pdf On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Alireza Soltanian wrote: > No T640 and T4000 are still manufactured. Anyway is there anybody who can >

Re: [j-nsp] Questions about T640

No T640 and T4000 are still manufactured. Anyway is there anybody who can provide answer? On Apr 11, 2016 11:24 AM, "Fredrik Korsbäck" wrote: > You do realize that most of T-series is EOL? > > Hugge@ as2603 > > > 11 Apr 2016 kl. 07:02 skrev Alireza Soltanian

Re: [j-nsp] Questions about T640

You do realize that most of T-series is EOL? Hugge@ as2603 > 11 Apr 2016 kl. 07:02 skrev Alireza Soltanian : > > Hi > > Yes the price of MX Series is much higher. > > > > From: Josh Reynolds [mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:27 AM > To: