Re: [j-nsp] vMX SR-IOV

Stefan, You need to use the modified version of the Intel drivers that are shipped with the VMX. Thanks On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 at 08:18, Stefan Stoyanov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Does anyone have an idea, why vMX SR-IOV vlan-tagging isn't working? > If I use "unit 0" without any VLANs configured

Re: [j-nsp] vMX SR-IOV

It's not supported by the Intel drivers. Travelling, I'll try and find you a link tomorrow. Cheers, James. On 23 Mar 2017 21:18, "Stefan Stoyanov" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Does anyone have an idea, why vMX SR-IOV vlan-tagging isn't working? > If I use "unit 0" without any VLANs configured on

[j-nsp] vMX SR-IOV

Hi everyone, Does anyone have an idea, why vMX SR-IOV vlan-tagging isn't working? If I use "unit 0" without any VLANs configured on the interface everything is okay. Is it possible to be something related to the NIC which I am using? Also, do I need to disable some of the following feature ( or a

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

Hi, in hardware flow sampling like inline Flow, I believe all sampling is done at 1/1 and the sample rate is only a scaling factor and doesn’t effect the physical sampling rate of the card. It’s been a while though, I may be wrong on this but this was the case in code up through 13.2 or so.

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

Hi, If you run with inline jflow what was your sampling rate ? IIRC there is some bw limitation for inline sampling but I dont know if it include the sampling calculation or not Nitzan On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > It's still about 75Gbps (i.e. for example 35Gbps+40Gbps)

Re: [j-nsp] flowspec in logical-systems

Hi Michail, We have been bitten by L-SYS funky limitations as well a certain number of times. As you state, it's a pity. Best regards. 2017-03-23 15:33 GMT+01:00 Michail Litvak : > Hi Timur, > > It's pity. > > Thanks for the information. > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Timur Maryin wro

Re: [j-nsp] flowspec in logical-systems

Hi Timur, It's pity. Thanks for the information. On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Timur Maryin wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > I believe it's not supported. > > > > > On 22-Mar-17 20:07, Michail Litvak wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Did anybody tried to use flowspec in the logical-system ? >> > > --

Re: [j-nsp] flowspec in logical-systems

Hi Michael, I believe it's not supported. On 22-Mar-17 20:07, Michail Litvak wrote: Hi all, Did anybody tried to use flowspec in the logical-system ? ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listin

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

> Rodrigo Augusto > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 1:51 PM > > Somebody knows if this occurs in other MX routers ? This trouble with flow > and traffic.. > Of course it does! It happens on all routers of all vendors. It's just on some of the NPU types it's less prominent (or you might not eve

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

Somebody knows if this occurs in other MX routers ? This trouble with flow and traffic…. Rodrigo Augusto Gestor de T.I. Grupo Connectoway http://www.connectoway.com.br http://www.1telecom.com.br * rodr...@connectoway.com.br ( (81) 34

Re: [j-nsp] routing instances on EX2300

Yes, for EX2300 it's https://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/select-platform.html?category=Switching&typ=1#family=&pid=30502300&platform=EX2300&rel=15.1X53-D55&sid=799&stat=0.4850388479542256&swName=Junos+OS

[j-nsp] R: routing instances on EX2300

I agree with you 110%, I hope it´ll be on the roadmap like the "oam", because it is really a disappointing thing, particularly if I think the EX2300 was introduced as an improvement on the "old" EX2200! But where you get the Feature Explorer? Is this link the right one? https://pathfinder.juni

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

Javier, I have the same issue on the mx104Š. Increase the latency when traffic of one AE interface is near from 40GB( 40GB tx and 28rx), and I have others peers on this mxŠ. When traffic goes down this latency is low againŠ.. When I see this e-mail deactivate the sampling on interfaces and goes to

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

> Saku Ytti > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:13 AM > > It's still about 75Gbps (i.e. for example 35Gbps+40Gbps) and 55Mpps. > > But memory bandwidth is dependant on how well packet aligns into cells, in > manufactured example you could have packet which cause singly byte to be > transferred on

Re: [j-nsp] flowspec in logical-systems

Hi Chuck, No, no any flowspec filter in LS has been created. To check I've created a dummy filter in the LS: 1. admin@lab-2> show firewall logical-system LS4 2. 3. Filter: __LS4/dummy 4. So, the question is still open On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Chuck Anderson wr

Re: [j-nsp] routing instances on EX2300

According to the Feature Explorer, VRF Lite are supported on EX2200, but not on EX2300. Reducing the feature set of new products is just ridiculous... > Le 23 mars 2017 à 08:55, Valentini, Lucio a écrit : > > I was trying to configure routing instances on the EX2300, like I did on the > EX4300

Re: [j-nsp] MX104 limitation

It's still about 75Gbps (i.e. for example 35Gbps+40Gbps) and 55Mpps. But memory bandwidth is dependant on how well packet aligns into cells, in manufactured example you could have packet which cause singly byte to be transferred on second cell, essentially doubling internal memory bandwidth requir

[j-nsp] routing instances on EX2300

Hi there, I was trying to configure routing instances on the EX2300, like I did on the EX4300, but it seems it´s not possible. I compare the EX4300 and the EX2300; as far as the licenses are concerned, the output of the command "show system license" is almost the same. I say almost, because in