We have daily work to configure basic load balancer, customer certs and open
firewalls, daily 5-15 tickets, without some sort of automation that will be
waste a lot of resources for Sr people. So I used ansible and some python and
shell script.
Also considering to use Yaml, Jinja2 for standard
>
> It's about increasing the odds of it to fall on the right side,
>
Exactly !
> But comparing say XR and Junos, judging from the rest of the inner workings
I could experience empirically, I'd say they are sufficiently different
> implementations.
>
True. In fact even XE & XR BGP code core is
> From: Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr [mailto:benge...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 3:43 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk
> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; Saku Ytti; Juniper List
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Le 17 août 2018 à 16:28, Robert Raszuk a écrit :
> And I have seen the opposite, ie networks running multiple vendor RRs,
> ending up with crashs because of buggy BGP implementations.
Hmmm since usually IBGP RRs do not talk to each other (leave alone RR
hierarchy aside) what you are essentially endorsing is single vendor
networks right ?
If I
Hi,
Le 17 août 2018 à 16:28, Robert Raszuk a écrit :
>> and that thing would then crash BGP on RRs, can't afford that happening.
>
> Then best thing is to run two or three RRs in parallel each using different
> BGP code base - even for the same AFI/SAFI pair
>
> I am seeing number of network
> and that thing would then crash BGP on RRs, can't afford that happening.
Then best thing is to run two or three RRs in parallel each using different
BGP code base - even for the same AFI/SAFI pair
I am seeing number of networks running single vendor RRs and when things
melt they run around and
Hi Antti, folks,
@Antti: Feel free to reach out directly if we can be of assistance. I
understand you are in CSC behind FUNET, connected to GÉANT?
Here in GÉANT we have 31 x MX480/960 routers, all acting as PE devices (no P
devices), spanning Europe.
We run a large set of protocols and service
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:38 PM
> To: Mark Tinka
> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; tim tiriche; Juniper List
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hey Mark,
>
> > > Yes a good practice is to separate internet routes from
> > > inte
> From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 9:57 AM
> To: Mark Tinka
> Cc: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net; cisco-
> n...@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] L3VPN/RR/PE on Same router
>
> Hey Mark,
>
> It has been a while
>
Hey Mark,
> > Yes a good practice is to separate internet routes from internal/services
> > l3vpn routes onto separate BGP control planes (different sessions at least)
> > so that malformed bgp msg will affect just one part of your overall BGP
> > infrastructure.
>
> I see you've been giving this
* tim tiriche [2018-08-16 16:40]:
> Hello,
>
> I have a MPLS PE (L3VPN) router that is acting as full mesh iBGP within the
> US. The other routers in the US are not RR and regular iBGP. This router
> also acts as RR for Europe and takes in full BGP table. Is there some
> caveats to watch out f
Side note on apply groups and display inheritance. I've submitted a Juniper
ER for an enhancement to have the ability to have ' | display inheritance'
a 'default' cli behavior (configurable via 'set cli display-inheritance'
option that is defaulted to off). I've also asked for a login-class option
> On 17/08/2018, at 10:54 PM, Antti Ristimäki wrote:
>
> Another option is to apply the auto-generated configuration via apply-groups
> and apply all manual configurations explicitly so that the automatic and
> manual configurations merge with each other. The positive side of this
> approach
Hello Chuck,
Thank you for your answer. I didn't know about this option.
Looking into the documentation, seems that this will do just what we need.
We will test it with our customer.
Thank you!
Best regards.
-Mensaje original-
De: Chuck Anderson
Enviado el: viernes, 17 de agosto de 201
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 07:45:12AM -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Maybe I’m missing an implied exception, but every once in a while one
> needs to make some sort of manual configuration to resolve a time
> sensitive some corner case that the provisioning system doesn’t
> support because someone exte
Dear Antti,
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 01:54:27PM +0300, Antti Ristimäki wrote:
> This is something that I've been thinking quite a lot, so I would be
> delighted to hear some comments, experiences or recommendations.
>
> So, now that more and more of us are automating their network, there
> will b
I’ll admit that I haven’t done much automation yet, so take this with a grain
of salt and provide clue where required...
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 6:54 AM, Antti Ristimäki wrote:
>
> Hi colleagues,
>
> This is something that I've been thinking quite a lot, so I would be
> delighted to hear some c
Instead of LAG you can try RTG, redundant-trunk-group. That would block
ingress and egress traffic on the backup link and not require STP.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:20:24AM +, Javier Valero wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We are facing a problem with one customer and multicast video streams on a
Hello all,
We are facing a problem with one customer and multicast video streams on a link
aggregation.
Maybe someone in the list know this behaviour and how to solve it.
We have EX4550 (VC) switches on different sites. We transport our customer
traffic over all our sites with a SVLAN assigned
Hi colleagues,
This is something that I've been thinking quite a lot, so I would be delighted
to hear some comments, experiences or recommendations.
So, now that more and more of us are automating their network, there will be
the question about how to manage the configurations, if they are par
Just to clarify ... I was not really worried about how to follow various
lists - mail client does a good job to combine them into one folder, filter
duplicates etc ...
But when writing general reply/question to Mark today about BGP sessions I
noticed it only had j-nsp - but oh the question is gene
> PS. Have not been reading -nsp aliases for a while, but now I see that I
> missed a lot ! Btw do we really need per vendor aliases here ? Wouldn't it
> be much easier to just have single nsp list ? After all we all most likely
> have all of the vendors in our networks (including Nokia !) and we
On 17/Aug/18 10:56, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hey Mark,
>
> It has been a while
It has, mate. Good to see you in these parts again :-)...
>
> Out of pure curiosity how are you setting up different BGP sessions to
> the same RR ?
>
> I think what Adam is proposing is real TCP session isolat
Hey Mark,
It has been a while
> We've been running all address families on the same RR's (different
> sessions, obviously, but same hardware)
Out of pure curiosity how are you setting up different BGP sessions to the
same RR ?
I think what Adam is proposing is real TCP session isolation, w
24 matches
Mail list logo
