Re: [j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

Thank you, Eduardo, I should have mentioned, that I was also trying to avoid dropping possibly legit ARP requests due to overaggressive policing. Clarke On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Eduardo Schoedler wrote: Hi Clarke, Maybe arp policer problem? https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/18201#18201

Re: [j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

Last I knew this was an architecture problem and was not yet addressed. I can't recommend Juniper right now for any platform that might get internet scanned and having a large connected subnet as a result. - Jared > On Apr 3, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Eduardo Schoedler wrote: > >

Re: [j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

Hi Clarke, Maybe arp policer problem? https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/18201#18201 Regards, 2017-04-03 14:07 GMT-03:00 Clarke Morledge : > I would like to revisit a question that has come up several times on the > list: > > https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/57670 >

[j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

I would like to revisit a question that has come up several times on the list: https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/57670 https://lists.gt.net/nsp/juniper/60797 I am trying to figure out a way to cut down on unnecessary ARP requests, being generated by MX routers, when someone comes sweeping

[j-nsp] Switch in a Virtual Chassis EX between VC-Port and front port

Hi, I have two EX switches in Virtual Chassis using the SFP ports, I already have the VC modules (they are EX4550 and EX4500) when I deactivate the SFP ports the communication is lost. The virtual chassisis does not work with the VC modules. The switches are in production and I can not perform a