Re: [j-nsp] BFD Session

Check interface stats and look for duplex, run a rapid burst of pings with small and large payloads (2 tests) also is this a service provider link or a link you control both ends? If the latter applies, might be worth looking at the optics and physical wire... else call your provider and ask for

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

❦ 27 mars 2017 21:15 GMT, Jeff Haas  : >> I totally understand it's not possible to just fix the issue. Your best >> bet is to convert the draft into a RFC and fix the issue here! ;-) > > After checking with Jürgen about RFC 4001 encoding (no better answer!) > he confirms that

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Jeff Haas wrote: > > >> On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> >> ❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas : >> >>> To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > ❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas : > >> To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about >> it? >> >> Very likely fixing the issue will cause mass amounts of

Re: [j-nsp] BFD Session

If it's an intermittent issue with Ping reachability, then check out interface errors as well. On top of that find out if there are any memory errors (where data gets buffered) in the Syslog i.e. CRC failing.. On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Jeff Haas wrote: > > > On Mar 5,

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

On Mar 27, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Vincent Bernat > wrote: ❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas > : To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about it? Very likely fixing the issue will

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

❦ 27 mars 2017 19:26 GMT, Jeff Haas  : > To your relevant next point: If the junos mib is in error, what to do about > it? > > Very likely fixing the issue will cause mass amounts of unhappiness as > people's existing scripts and mib walking code fails due to the new >

Re: [j-nsp] RES: RES: QFX 5100 and Q-in-Q

Hi, Yes same configuration. We pretty much received a confirmation from the JTAC about the limitation about PVST+. ( Hopefully a Jman could be clearer on the "why", for the enlightenment of the list ) We deployed those QFX5100 for customers in need of >1Gbps QinQ.

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: >>> So, 192.0.2.47 should be encoded to 4.192.0.2.47. >> >> Probably no. >> >> The headache here is that the underlying type is RFC 4001's >> InetAddress. As you can see in the documentation in that RFC the >> expectation

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

❦ 27 mars 2017 16:10 GMT, Jeff Haas  : >> I have been reported a (simple) bug in the implementation of the >> BGP4-V2-MIB-JUNIPER. I know that if I open a JTAC case about this, I >> will be asked a lot of unrelated questions, then I would be told that >> since this never

Re: [j-nsp] BGP4-MIB-v2

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > Hey! > > I have been reported a (simple) bug in the implementation of the > BGP4-V2-MIB-JUNIPER. I know that if I open a JTAC case about this, I > will be asked a lot of unrelated questions, then I would be told that >

Re: [j-nsp] BFD Session

> On Mar 5, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > > Hi all > I have a BFD session between two routers (which was working normally) > Currently , the session is down from one side and init from the other side > The ISIS adjacency is up > What could be the issue? The