Re: [j-nsp] Topology failure on EX4200

One more observation: OSPF adjacency in the management vlan does not break, so I conclude that only unicast traffic is affected. Victor Sudakov wrote: > > There is a ring of EX4200 switches, please look at > http://noc.sibptus.ru/jun1.png > > If MUX1 fails, the MSTP topology adjusts and the

[j-nsp] IPSec vs SRX packet flow

Hi, My users are sitting in 10.100.0.0/16 which need need to access applications at the other side of an SRX via route-based IPSec configured on SRX with source proxy-ID 172.30.30.0/24. So I need to NAT all 10.100.0.0/16 to 172.30.30.0/24. I can not find reference confirming if source NAT (and

Re: [j-nsp] EX4200: Ricoh printers, DHCP Snooping, dot1x Dynamic VLAN assignments

On Jul 10, 2017, at 8:22 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > Is anyone using EX4200 with DHCP Snooping + dot1x Dynamic VLAN > assignments? Yes, we've been running that setup for several years on EX3200 and 4200 VC setups campus-wide. During the first year we hit several bugs with the

[j-nsp] EX4200: Ricoh printers, DHCP Snooping, dot1x Dynamic VLAN assignments

Is anyone using EX4200 with DHCP Snooping + dot1x Dynamic VLAN assignments? I appear to be hitting bugs where some devices can't DHCP (such as Ricoh printer/copier/fax/scanners), or once they do DHCP they can't communicate through the EX4200 switch port. It seems I can make things work better by

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

As a guess, maybe it's a mature technology on other platforms like MX family, but perhaps just not yet on QFX -Aaron -Original Message- From: juniper-nsp [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jackson, William Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:21 PM To: William

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

We are running VRRP in all VLANS that require L3. We also have the static ARP entries setup so they can ping between peers. We have floating static routes so that if a MC-LAG peer loses its upstream routing, it will forward all traffic to the other MC-LAG peer over the ICL. **if we don’t do this

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

I can’t remember the exact version offhand. it was in the 14.1X53 range I believe. It’s been live for a while though. I think we may have run into issues with some MC-LAG on ex4600s (mostly the same as qfx5100…) in the 14.1X53-D30 range maybe? I think they were resolved with D35? I’m sorry

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

❦ 10 juillet 2017 12:36 -0400, William McLendon  : > if you are running a routing protocol over the particular VLAN on the > MC-LAG peers (which is a supported config in Junos MC-LAG > implementation) make sure you are running VRRP between the MC-LAG > peers, even though it

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

if you are running a routing protocol over the particular VLAN on the MC-LAG peers (which is a supported config in Junos MC-LAG implementation) make sure you are running VRRP between the MC-LAG peers, even though it seems unnecessary. VRRP seems required for any ARP sync to occur for a given

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

I haven't done MC-LAG but I'm curious about your mention of arp synch not working. How do you know ? Are you missing arp entries in one 5100 but not the other ? or what are you seeing (not seeing) ? - Aaron ___ juniper-nsp mailing list

Re: [j-nsp] J-NSP list working ?

Or we gave up =D - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 07/08/17 14:58, Job Snijders wrote: I got this message!

Re: [j-nsp] J-NSP list working ?

> Is the J-NSP list broken? I haven't seen a post since Tuesday. I think the entire network engineering community is on vacation, as even the high-traffic cisco-nsp list has only had about a half dozen messages in the past two weeks. :) -evt ___

Re: [j-nsp] MC-LAG on QFX5100

VCF My experiences with this so far have not been so good………. So not on the radar at all. I could use VC but I don’t want the shared control plane. And MC-LAG “should” be very mature……. From: Matt Freitag [mailto:mlfre...@mtu.edu] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:13 AM To: Vincent Bernat